Do you know a Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing a blood transfusion?

Answer 1

Yes. Unfortunately it does indeed happen that witnesses die after refusing a blood transfusion and I do know of one or two individuals for whom this has been the case.

The question however implies that the CAUSE of death was not receiving a blood transfusion and this is rarely (if ever) the case. I know of no witness that has died BECAUSE they did not receive a blood transfusion, they usually have died because of a serious injury or disease.

Transfusions in themselves do not "cure" or heal anyone but merely ensure the body's blood volume is sufficient so that further medical treatment can be administered. Since for most cases alternative non-plasma based treatments can be administered without the not insignificant risks of blood transfusions, where these alternatives are available, few witnesses die solely as a result of refusing blood transfusion.

***************************************************************

Yes. Only recently near where I live in the UK a pair of Jehovah's Witness parents watched their small child die for the need of blood. She had gone into the operating theatre for a routine procedure, but, because of unforseen complications, a lot of blood was lost in the operation. The replenishment of this blood would have meant that the operation not only would have been a success but she would have made a full and rapid recovery. As it was, her massive loss of blood caused heart failure and death after the operation, as the parents refused point blank a transfusion. Because of religious laws in the UK, neither the distraught, begging, doctors nor the social services, nor the police could do anything about it as the parents stood by and watched their little girl die. Whilst I can understand someone who believes in the JW propaganda regarding blood might make a decision about their own lives, I find it not only shocking but also callous that a similar decision could be made about their own child who would otherwise have had her whole life - her God-given life - ahead of her. As a Christian I regard all life as God-given and sacred, and therefore I believe we do not have the right as humans to terminate a life either for convenience (such as in abortion) as punishment (in the death sentence) or because of a mis-interpreted verse in the Old Testament that was superceded by Christ's teaching and Peter's vision in Acts anyway.

***************************************************************

From expert sources themselvesMany people assume that blood transfusions increase the possibility of survival, and that when someone dies without a transfusion, it must've been the lack of a transfusion that caused the death. Both assumptions are false according to medical studies. The facts are that, blood transfusion patients are more likely to die, many of which die as a result of complications from the transfusion itself.

A New England Journal of Medicine report dated Feb 11,1999, was one of first to provide evidence of the potential dangers of blood transfusions. In it, 838 critically ill patients were randomly divided into two groups. One group underwent a restrictive transfusion strategy, and received red cell transfusions only when their hemoglobin level fell below 7.0 grams per deciliter; the other group underwent a liberal transfusion strategy and received transfusions if their level fell below 10.0 grams per deciliter. (Normal hemoglobin levels range from 12.0 to 17.0 grams per deciliter.) The restrictive group had a hospital mortality rate of 22% versus 28% in the liberal group. In other words, the group that receieved a more liberal transfusion procedure had a higher mortality rate. Web address: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/340/6/409.pdf

In 2004 The Journal of the American Medical association found that in a study of a group of heart attack patients, the ones who received a transfusion were three times more likely to die or suffer a second heart attack within 30 days compared to those who did not receive a transfusion. Web address: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/13/1555

In 2007, a study in the UK of 8,516 cardiac surgery patients found that those who had a red cell transfusion had an almost sixfold increase in the risk of dying within 30 days, and three times higher risk of dying within one year. Web address: http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/circ/abstract.00003017-200711270-00009.htm;jsessionid=JSrhNHg1Q8GlKt2LBZsVz0n2TRW3LQzNPn2cxt4hLBGQFrl1LqF7!-2118404334!181195629!8091!-1

The medical community is becoming more and more aware of increased mortality rates among people who receive blood transfusions as opposed to those who do not.

Here are some some statements by surgeons and experts in the field:

* Dr. Peter Carmel, Chairman of Neurological Surgery, University Hospital, Newark, NJ, USA states:

'Rarely, if ever has a patient died because of a rufusal of blood.'

'What we are talking about here (blood transfusions) is going to soon be a moot point, because bloodless medicine and surgery will become in the next 5 to 10 years so widespread that it won't be novel anymore.'

' There are now available techniques in almost every sub-specialty of medical care and surgery that allow bloodless treatment, that we are getting away from blood transfusions in general.'

* Dr Aryeh Shander, Chief of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Englewood Hospital, New Jersey, USA states:

'To say that someone has died as a result of refusal of a blood transfusion is generally a misleading statement.'

' People die of some medical disease, trauma, or complications of the surgical procedure itself.'

* DR Mark Boyd, Professor and Director of Gynecology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Quebec, Canada sates:

'(saying that someone died becasue they did not receive blood) is an oversimplication of the tragic event.'

* Professor Roland Hetzer, Chief of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, German Heart Institute, Berlin, Germany states:

'With the development of all these techniques (of bloodless surgery), there is nothing really specific about Jehovah's Witnesses anymore. We know that they do not want blood transfusions, and we have the technology to follow their wish.'

* Professor Francesco Metrcuriali, Director of Transfusion Services, Orthopedic Institute G.Pini, University of Milan, Italy states in speaking about the medical community's changing attitude toward transfusions:

'Blood transfusions, traditionally considered a normal ajoint to surgery, presently is considered something that has to be avoided.'

* Dr Hooshang Bolooki, Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Florida, USA states:

' I have done surgery on over 200 Jehovah's Witness patients, and never lost a patient because I could not give blood.'

' As a heart surgeon, I should love blood, but I don't. I am very proud when one of my patients comes out of the operating room and has not received any transfusion.'

* Dr Stephen Cohn, Professor and Chief Medicall Director of Trauma, Jackson Memorial Hospital, Florida, USA states:

' The fact that we couldn't use blood on Jehovah's Witnesses, we have learned now that we didn't have to use blood in many, many different other situations. It has actually propelled us in the right direction.'

' The belief that you don't want a blood transfusion should be a tiny part of the whole medical care environment, that it should be acknowledged, put over to the side, ok, now here is the other 99% of your care.'

More and more hospitals are making bloodless surgery their preferred method for all patients. At present, there are some 100,000 doctors and surgeons worldwide that are making bloodless surgery available to everyone, not just Jehovah's Witnesses.

* Dr Linda Stehling, former Professor of Anesthesiology and Pediatrics, State University of New York, USA states regarding bloodless medicine:

'It should be the standard available to all patients.'

* Professor Charles H Baron, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School, Massachusetts, USA states:

' What I have seen, from my own experience, is that they (Jehovah's Witnesses) have turned the medical community around to the point that the gold standard of treatment frequently now is to treat people without the use of blood.'

Personal Experience

I DID know one Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing a blood transfusion.

It's not what you think.

The court got involved and although she explained her personal convictions emphatically, a blood transfusion was administered against her will.

It hurts my heart to remember how she cried when they told her how the court had ruled.

She died the day after the transfusion.

Answer 2

First it must be noted that this is not an either/or situation.

We seek the best possible medical care for our children, and generally accept all treatments with the exception of blood transfusions.

One cannot say the person - child or adult - who is need of medical care will die without a transfusion or that they will live if they receive one. There are countless documented cases where they doctors definitely stated the patient would die if they did not receive a transfusion, but the patient refused and lived. Many honest doctors have admitted since then that the patients who are treated without blood often do better than those who get it. Often also blood transfusion leads to further, more serious complications. (My brother in law, who is not a JW, can testify to that!)

But all that being said, the issue is not a medical one, but one of obedience to the one who gives us all life, Jehovah.

He it was who told Noah, who is an ancestor of all of us, not to eat blood. (Genesis 9:4)

Then in Acts 15:28, 29, the command goes further than to not eat; there we are told to "abstain from blood" or "keep away from blood."

We love our children, but obedience to Jehovah comes first, and even should we loose them in death, we know they are safe in His memory, and he can will bring them back to life.

Abraham is an excellent example of obedience in the face of possibly losing the life of a loved due to obedience. -- Genesis 22:1-18. This account is reference in Hebrews 11:17-19where we read: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son, although it had been said to him: 'What will be called "your seed" will be through Isaac.' But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way."

Answer 3

It is probably impossible to know how many Witnesses have, or have not, died as a result of refusing a transfusion of whole blood or its four main components, as these statistics are difficult to collate worldwide.

As a side note, the issue of whether death ensues from a transfusion refusal is not the primary concern from a Jehovah's Witness viewpoint anyway. Witnesses believe that it is more important to follow the lead of their Governing Body who interpret Acts 15 (abstain from blood) to mean one cannot have a transfusion of whole blood, red cells, white cells, plasma or platelets.