Young lad dies, after refusing blood

Originally Posted by gazfan

All I can say is that I have respect for this lad ultimately 'keeping his faith'.

But I also question a faith that demands such a sacrifice - especially when, as Arthur points out, there are 'blood substitutes' available that may have saved the boy's life.

- and I also wonder whether the 'eating' blood taboo that seems to be at the core of the prohibition does actually apply to a transplant?

I am a bit hazzy on the scripture but I believe the life blood should flow back to the ground. Once the blood has flown you can do what is required I do not know if transplants are allowed however

---------- Post added at 00:17 ---------- Previous post was at 00:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

He wouldn't have believed it was a sacrifice though. After the rest of us "non-believers" get slaughtered by their "loving" god, he'd have believed he'd be back.
That's one thing you have to say about the JW's, they don't try to hide the dark side of christian scripture.

As for other non-blood products, I don't know if emergency rooms carry any. I know they can be brought in for planned operations, similarly with blood cleaning machines to return blood lost, and some will take plasma, however depending on his level of brainwa-sorry, faith, it looks like if they were options available, he wasn't willing to take them.

my local hospital does and has a very good relationship with the JWs including a very good blood free surgeon who is very careful with the knife instead the slash through normal surgeons

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zing

my local hospital does and has a very good relationship with the JWs including a very good blood free surgeon who is very careful with the knife instead the slash through normal surgeons

Good.
Many JWs I know would not take anything though.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Good.
Many JWs I know would not take anything though.

see I do not understand that . All the information is readily available through the Watchtower society there is paperwork on the subject. The organisation should basically be uniform and follow the same beliefs and rules

Originally Posted by danielf

Shame he won't be around to hear it

That is true, Dan, in my opinion it was a waste of such fervour - but only because I don't understand how his faith could be so important to him that he abdicated his mortality for his belief, I cannot conclude from that he was 'wrong', only 'misguided' - which is relative to my beliefs, not his?

---------- Post added at 00:27 ---------- Previous post was at 00:25 ----------

Originally Posted by zing

see I do not understand that . All the information is readily available through the Watchtower society there is paperwork on the subject. The organisation should basically be uniform and follow the same beliefs and rules

agreed

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zing

see I do not understand that . All the information is readily available through the Watchtower society there is paperwork on the subject. The organisation should basically be uniform and follow the same beliefs and rules

It's a faith thing, especially if someone is driven by the belief they will meet up with a lost loved one, or a healed infirm loved one if they are a "good" JW.

[rogerdraig]

there are blood substitutes that all JW's i know would take and some are better in some circumstances

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitutes

not that is why we choose not to take blood though
as to scriptural reason see
(Acts 15:28, 29; Genesis 9:4)

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

there are blood substitutes that all JW's i know would take and some are better in some circumstances

If this lad had been part of your group he might still be alive then.

[Lord Nikon]

Scripture links not working by the way.

[rogerdraig]

acts

28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

genesis

4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

both taken from
(New International Version)

[Lord Nikon]

ok, question for you. Is knowledge a gift from god?

[rogerdraig]

no else learning would be pointless

we have learned how to destroy our planet should we use that on the basis of we learn because of a gift from god ?

there are very few instructions in the bible but one is to abstain from blood and that is still a choice for one to make oneself as we have free will he chose to follow his belief as he loved following his god just as this boy ( see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-exercise.html ) loved doing what he did i presume

neither did so with the desire to die but both made a choice that had that outcome and both had an equal right to do so

[Lord Nikon]

However reading the quotes above it is evident that the intention is to refer to the consumption of blood, since Acts encapsulates it within the context of foods, Genesis within the context of an accounting for unnecessary bloodshed. Neither refer to the use of blood to heal. Even within the bible there is reference to using parts of one body in another, Eve was created from the rib of Adam.
I fail to see the prohibition of blood freely given that another may live as anything other than an extension of the Good Samaritan giving of himself to aid someone in need.

[frogstamper]

Personally I find this almost impossible to understand, irrespective of some very subjective phrase written in a book over two thousand years ago what about his parents? where were they when their fifteen year old son was effectively committing suicide?
Whatever your beliefs are if it comes to a situation where one of your children who is dying, can be saved by something as simple as a blood transfusion and those parents sit back and allow their child to die...well words fail me..

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

However reading the quotes above it is evident that the intention is to refer to the consumption of blood, since Acts encapsulates it within the context of foods, Genesis within the context of an accounting for unnecessary bloodshed. Neither refer to the use of blood to heal. Even within the bible there is reference to using parts of one body in another, Eve was created from the rib of Adam.
I fail to see the prohibition of blood freely given that another may live as anything other than an extension of the Good Samaritan giving of himself to aid someone in need.

i am not asking you to see it he did though

but for the sake of argument if we are going to say it doesnt mention medical treatment ( no blood transfusions we know of back then )

If a Dr told you drinking any more alcohol will kill you do you think feeding it into your self intravenously would negate that warning ?

and as to to what god did that's up to him he makes the rules

and i still see no difference in this brave lad doing as he wanted to do and the lad whop died on that ship

we may not have done what either did but both have the right live their lives as they wish and i expect with the full knowledge of why they wanted to

for do not think this boy wouldn't have known about the view of others on blood we spend a lot of time learning about what others believe to be able to defend our belief and are taught to question everything one of my favorite books we have is titled "Make sure of all things"

---------- Post added at 02:52 ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 ----------

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Personally I find this almost impossible to understand, irrespective of some very subjective phrase written in a book over two thousand years ago what about his parents? where were they when their fifteen year old son was effectively committing suicide?
Whatever your beliefs are if it comes to a situation where one of your children who is dying, can be saved by something as simple as a blood transfusion and those parents sit back and allow their child to die...well words fail me..

he is of an age that the law allows him to make this judgment if the parent were forcing this choice on him then others would complain on that too

should i stop my kids crossing roads, swimming in the sea, working on a building site, driving cars or going to war zone?

my extended family have lost members to all of those things all a lot more common things for a JW to die from than the blood issue

one picks a course in life and tries to stick to your principles i admire any that stick to what they believe rather than just changing tack because the going gets tough

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i am not asking you to see it he did though

but for the sake of argument if we are going to say it doesnt mention medical treatment ( no blood transfusions we know of back then )

Agreed, I am just hpothesising on the matter in hand

If a Dr told you drinking any more alcohol will kill you do you think feeding it into your self intravenously would negate that warning ?

There is a small yet significant difference, Alcohol is effectively a poison which affects the oxygenation of the blood leading to feelings of euphoria. Blood is a necessary part of the human body.
The discussion is over replacing a necessary oxygenating substance which is completely natural to the body, not administering alcohol.

and as to to what god did that's up to him he makes the rules

and i still see no difference in this brave lad doing as he wanted to do and the lad whop died on that ship

There is a significant difference. The lad on the ship died despite all attempts to save him, this one's death could perhaps have been prevented by medical treatment he declined to have.

we may not have done what either did but both have the right live their lives as they wish and i expect with the full knowledge of why they wanted to

for do not think this boy wouldn't have known about the view of others on blood we spend a lot of time learning about what others believe to be able to defend our belief and are taught to question everything one of my favorite books we have is titled "Make sure of all things"

Jesus asked the Pharisees, "Which of you shall have an donkey or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not go to pull him out on the sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5) The difference in Jesus example is that a life is being saved, even if it is only the life of an animal. To administer a blood transfusion to save a life is to endorse, or sustain, the preeminent value, which is life itself. The priority of the law is the sanctity of life. Jesus even used the example of David to prove this principle. David was permitted to eat the showbread, belonging only to the priest, in his time of need, he was not punished. (1 Sam. 21:6). The Bible's principle Jesus made clear in Mark 7:14 when He said, "Nothing that goes into a man from the outside can make him unclean."