The rejection of blood transfusion is represented worldwide by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” religious congregation for seven decades is promoting their opposition on this medical procedure, developed aggressive marketing campaigns through their advertising magazines “Watchtower “and” Awake “. These publications address the issue with religious fundamentalism supported by “scientific references” to talk about “quality settings” to treatment with blood. If you approach these readings slightly, can be persuaded to why their dogmatic positions, especially if we lack consistent physiological and pathophysiological knowledge.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are well aware that the vast majority of the population lacks a culture of information and research, that citizens are reluctant to take time in-depth study of a particular subject and form an opinion reasoned and independent, and I must admit bitterness, that health professionals are being convinced by arguments that lack scientific rigor with which they were formed. Please do not leave me to cross off atheist or agnostic for demanding scientific method, as I am fully convinced that medical knowledge is a divine manifestation, inspiration given by a superior to what we know of God, under any name you want assign everyone who professes the religion as. I call upon that knowledge to unmask those who rationally biased so try to instill in people a fear that has no basis, using biblical passages or scientific papers that have been taken partially and tendentious. Remember, even the Devil quoted verses when I wanted to break the will of Jesus in the desert.
When originated the rejection of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses?
The origins of this opposition are late, dating from 1945, when Nathan Homer Knorr presided over attempt was transfusion XXVII century, conducted by Jean Baptiste Denys, this procedure is even mentioned in a famous novel, “Frankenstein”, the nineteenth century, the use of stored blood was started in World War I (1914-1918) and the first blood bank was founded in London in 1921, therefore, the transfusion was not ” Bible Study Group “would favor prohibiting blood transfusion.
I recall that blood transfusion is not the only method by which doctor have opposed the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the appropriate vaccines were described as “crime and fraud” between the years 1931-1952, and Organ Transplantation “Cannibalism”, being proscribed for members of the congregation in 1967 to 1980.
Here is a review of the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding vaccinations:
“Vaccination never prevented anything and never will, and the devil loses his grip slowly, struggling hard to do as much damage as he can, and put on your credit such evils can do … Use your rights as citizens Americans to abolish forever the evil practice of vaccination. “[Golden Age (converted later in Awake!); October 12.1921, p.17].
With the passage of time – and the conviction of the utility of these methods doctors to save lives – the position on vaccination and transplantation were flexibilizándose and becoming a mere act of personal conscience, not being misdemeanor punishable with expulsion of that religious group.
Jehovah’s Witnesses justify their opposition to blood transfusion by the arbitrary interpretation of passages of Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Acts:
“Just abstendréis from meat that has even in his life, that is, its blood” (Genesis 9:4).
“Where your dwellings you shall not eat any blood or bird or beast. Whoever comes to eating blood, whatever, will be removed from your people.” (Leviticus 7.26 to 28).
“You however, whenever you want, kill animals and eat their flesh, as the LORD your God has blessed you in all your towns and may eat the pure and the impure, as if it were gazelle or deer. But blood not eat: pour it on the earth like water. ” (Deuteronomy 12.15-16).
“As for the Gentiles who have believed, as we have sent to say that, in our determination, they should abstain from food sacrificed, blood, flesh , (Acts 21:25).
Receiving a blood transfusion is not “eat” meat, blood derivatives positions that are never used for feeding or used for that purpose. The transfusion therapy is restored: You are given one or more components of the blood is deficient in that time.
Blood is a living tissue, and continues once estándola has been infused, not used as the supply of calories, nor to provide components for protein synthesis, to form less energy reserves more here.
Remember that at the time of the biblical texts were written (about 2000-3000 years ago.), No one could imagine ever appear such medical therapies, or that exist in the blood components “major” that are banned by witnesses or components “minor”, which are well received by its members.
Otherwise, God would have had to order:
“You, however, whenever you want, kill animals and eat their albumin, immunoglobulins and their factor VIII and IX, to the extent that the LORD your God has blessed you in all your cities, and may eat the pure the unclean, like gazelle or servant. But the whole blood, plasma, red blood cells, platelets and white, do not eat: the pour it on the ground like water. “
You know that Yahweh did not mention it, for millennia of knowledge society separated Aramaic of current medical knowledge.
Author’s note:platelets, patient’s own blood stored for subsequent factor VIII and IX.
The livelihoods “Scientist”
Through research cited biased or tendentious, Witnesses seek to demonstrate that:
Blood transfusions are harmful.
Blood transfusions are unnecessary because there are other alternatives to “quality”.
To validate these hypotheses, have published namely:
1. – The magazine “How Can Blood the risks of transfusion and the “quality settings” and the right to choose.
2. – “The Rh Factor and You” and “At the forefront of bloodless surgery with Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
3. – “Alternative treatment to blood”, which lists various volume expanders, hemorrhagic and anti anemic.
4. – “Strategies to prevent and control bleeding and anemia without blood
5. – Compilations made by the same witnesses on some biomedical hemoglobin of 1.4 g / dl. (Brimacombe J et al. Anesthesia and Intensive Care. Vol. 19, No. 4, 1991) “.
6. – “Balance legal ethics of the doctor-patient”
7. – A video “transfusion alternatives”.
This is stunning, but reads more contrast and explain what these manuscripts and video. For example, the British Medical Journal articulates not say anywhere that can or should be without these blood products is more, the author considers its use mandatory when there is moderate or severe bleeding. Why then cited this article? Perhaps because they hoped that nobody read the study in full, keeping the “positive impression” originated in a prestigious journal is to “favor” of their cause.
Mark Warner and Ronald J, in his article “Hazards of Transfusion (Anesthesiology Clinics of North America, Vol 8, No. 03, September. 1990) report that” There are few alternatives to blood transfusion in clinical practice. The autologous transfusion is available and its popularity is increasing, mainly due to the fear of contracting is to be amended inappropriate transfusion practices, and nothing Suggest that they be deleted.