Jehovah's Witnesses & Blood Transfusions

Mexarican · Apr 17, 2007

Interesting article. I found it to represents the medical community in a way that we sometimes do act, that we know eveything that is good for the patient and that simply is not true. It urks me when we as the medical community act as though we know all there is to know about what is best for the patient and medicine for that matter. In medicine there is no and never will be absolutes. A professor of mine once said, " In medicine the only time you can use the words never and always is when say, you can never say always." Sometimes as a medical communitywe can be arrogant. It is well known that blood tranfusions carry HIGH risk of other complications such as microorganisms that can cause infections in the new host, just review your microbiology text book, and yet we still feel it is the only form of treatment w/o considering alternatives. For example, today we know that a virus causes cervical cancer. The blood bank doesn't screen for this nor have they ever been really receptive to screening for new viruses or microorganisms that may be detrimental to the publics health. Revisit the epic lally gagging done when HIV was first brought into light in the 80s. A test had been designed and they were debating over the cost of introducing the use of the test for the blodd supply. Are you freaking kidding me!?! IMHO, i thinks the Jehovah's had it right all along. Only by there insistence in alternative forms of treatments and surgeries has the medical establishment been forced to find better and safer forms of treatments to replace the need for blood tranfusions. i am a firm believer parents should be able to decided what is best for their children and if the minor is of good age (adolescent) they can express their intentions. In the article the first 16 yr old patient mentioned was forced by the court to have blood tranfusions administered against her their will for HER protection. The article later acknowledges that she had to physically and chemically restrained because she fought the transfusions! One medical professional expressed, " It became increasing difficult to walk into her room holding the IV tubing primed with blood and say, "I'm sorry to do this to you." She was forced to endure this 38 times against her will. :madface: Go figure...she died anyway...and to make matters worse her body was violated as a farewell. How's that for good medicine!

i believe we should Respect people's religious beleifs, for many people those are more important than their very lives, take those away and you leave them with nothing!

lorazepam · Apr 17, 2007

That is a very interesting article! I've been given Awake! before and their handouts usually contain their stances on blood transfusions (although one-sided, exploiting the risks). The references of that article cites Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, http://ajwrb.org/, which also includes stances for accepting blood, and biblical interpretation,

Some Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a blood transfusion is a liquid tissue or organ transplant, not a meal, and hence does not violate the biblical admonition to "abstain from [eating] blood." The Watchtower Society attempts to deny these members, many of them born to JW parents, a free choice in their medical care by means of controls and sanctions - namely enforced shunning by JW family members and friends. They have been persecuted for their conscientious beliefs by their own religious organization which presents itself as a champion of human rights.

Overall, that entire case was unfortunate. The problems I see were the lack of 1)informed consent, its under my impression that, whoever told her that she would survive without the transfusion, told it to her because it was something she wanted to hear. 2)right to autonomy, relating to the religious implications of the transfusion, and 3)assault and battery; how the blood was administered.

I hope in the future, clients who are JW will have their rights to not receive transfusions respected AND that reform will take place again, seeing that they already allow cow Hgb, Hgb, and everything but RBC, WBC, plasma and PLT.

NurseguyFL · Apr 17, 2007

I'm sure this thread will die pretty quickly because this topic has been discussed more times than perhaps any other. But, I just want to say that I do not believe that any judge, government official, or physician should have the right to be forcing any type of medical treatment (blood, chemo, or whatever) on anyone who doesn't want it, regardless of the reason. Yes, they should intervene by educating patients about how the treatment 'could' be beneficial and about whatever risks there may be. But if patients are of sound mind and able to make educated decisions about what they want or don't want, they have a right to choose or refuse. They love to talk about doing what needs to be done in the best interest of the patient, but do they really know what's in the best interest of the patient? You never hear these experts talk about the long-term psychological negatives, or the fact that there is no guarantee that the patient won't be physically harmed in other ways, or that the patient may not survive---even with the treatment. Its all about the physicians---what THEY think and what THEY want. This arrogance is unbelievable! Whatever happened to what the patients think and what the patients want?

I was especially horrified at the part about them restraining the patient and walking into the room with a primed blood transfusion set-up, saying "I'm sorry to have to do this to you, but..." How dare they! How is that different from me restraining and slapping a screaming patient and then saying 'I'm sorry I had to do that to you, but its for your own good'?

Mudwoman · Apr 17, 2007

I had a pt once that was J Witness. She had been in a car accident and her Hct had gotten down to 7. Of course was refusing blood. I talked with the family about the belief and why they would let her die. I did understand ,based on their belief, why they would refuse, but thought it was sad. To everyone's amazement, she got better and walked out of that hospital weeks later.

Jerry1234 · Apr 17, 2007

In both the United States and Canada, the general rule is that competent Jehovah's Witness ADULTS may choose to die rather than accept a life-saving blood transfusion. However, in both jurisdictions, the general rule is that Jehovah's Witness PARENTS are NOT allowed to make this same decision for their CHILDREN.

The linked magazine article deals with an EXCEPTION to the general rule that JW CHILDREN will be given life-saving blood transfusions against their parents' wishes. That is the scenario when JW CHILDREN are of sufficient age, maturity, knowledge, etc. as to be legally labeled as "mature minors", who the courts will then permit to refuse blood transfusions.

This magazine article discusses whether Canadian Courts, while in determining whether certain JW CHILDREN were "mature minors", or not, whether those Courts focused too much on the element of "competence", and not enough on the elements of "adequate information" and "lack of coercion". Before anyone (an adult or a "mature minor"), can legally give or refuse consent to medical treatment, three conditions must be met: competence, adequate information and lack of coercion.

As pointed out in the article, Jehovah's Witnesses depend almost exclusively on the WatchTower Society for their information about the issue of blood transfusions. The article presents a whole host of reasons as to why the WatchTower Society is probably the world's worst source for accurate information on blood transfusions. Thus, how could JW adults, much less "mature minors", ever be adequately informed so as to be legally capable of giving informed consent?

The article also briefly addresses the issue of "coercion". Jehovah's Witnesses practice disfellowshipping (excommunication) and shunning of any JW who consents to receiving a blood transfusion. Because of such, even JW adults are essentially coerced into refusing blood transfusions. Thus, how in the world could a child of JW parents ever make such a decision without being "coerced"?

(moderator note: unapproved link removed)

catzy5 · May 15, 2007

interesting article. i found it to represents the medical community in a way that we sometimes do act, that we know eveything that is good for the patient and that simply is not true. it urks me when we as the medical community act as though we know all there is to know about what is best for the patient and medicine for that matter. in medicine there is no and never will be absolutes. a professor of mine once said, " in medicine the only time you can use the words never and always is when say, you can never say always." sometimes as a medical communitywe can be arrogant. it is well known that blood tranfusions carry high risk of other complications such as microorganisms that can cause infections in the new host, just review your microbiology text book, and yet we still feel it is the only form of treatment w/o considering alternatives. for example, today we know that a virus causes cervical cancer. the blood bank doesn't screen for this nor have they ever been really receptive to screening for new viruses or microorganisms that may be detrimental to the publics health. revisit the epic lally gagging done when hiv was first brought into light in the 80s. a test had been designed and they were debating over the cost of introducing the use of the test for the blodd supply. are you freaking kidding me!?! imho, i thinks the jehovah's had it right all along. only by there insistence in alternative forms of treatments and surgeries has the medical establishment been forced to find better and safer forms of treatments to replace the need for blood tranfusions. i am a firm believer parents should be able to decided what is best for their children and if the minor is of good age (adolescent) they can express their intentions. in the article the first 16 yr old patient mentioned was forced by the court to have blood tranfusions administered against her their will for her protection. the article later acknowledges that she had to physically and chemically restrained because she fought the transfusions! one medical professional expressed, " it became increasing difficult to walk into her room holding the iv tubing primed with blood and say, "i'm sorry to do this to you." she was forced to endure this 38 times against her will. go figure...she died anyway...and to make matters worse her body was violated as a farewell. how's that for good medicine!
i believe we should respect people's religious beleifs, for many people those are more important than their very lives, take those away and you leave them with nothing!

hi i enjoyed your post i love your insight thank you.

i just posted this on another board i hope its ok to post here too, but there is a documantary comming up on pbs on this very topic, i have a copy of the video its very interesting so i thought i would send the link to anyone who is interested. the documantary goes into other things but one of the main parts (there are 2) is a boy 23 needing a liver transplant but will not accept blood.

knocking documentary project

CaLLaCoDe, BSN, RN · May 17, 2007

I had a pt once that was J Witness. She had been in a car accident and her Hct had gotten down to 7. Of course was refusing blood. I talked with the family about the belief and why they would let her die. I did understand ,based on their belief, why they would refuse, but thought it was sad. To everyone's amazement, she got better and walked out of that hospital weeks later.

Actually, I'm wondering if I might refuse a blood transfusion in the future, with Epogen and a good nutritional intake, I've seen more than my share of JWs get better without having to go out shopping for a casket!

HIV and Hep C are things that screenings can't always catch!