Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Jehovah's Witnesses' literature teaches that their refusal of transfusions of whole blood or its four primary components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma—is a non-negotiable religious stand and that those who respect life as a gift from God do not try to sustain life by taking in blood, [5] [6] even in an emergency. [7]
As a doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses do not reject transfusion of whole autologous blood so long as it is not stored prior to surgery (e.g. peri-operative extraction and transfusion of autologous blood). This religious position is due to their belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God's eyes.
Jehovah's Witnesses officially reject transfusions of whole allogeneic blood and some of its fractionated components. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that the Bible prohibits the consumption, storage and transfusion of blood , based on their understanding of scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10, 11: "I will certainly set my face against the one ...
Jehovah's Witnesses typically refuse blood transfusions, which they consider a violation of God's law based on their interpretation of Acts 15:28, 29 and other scriptures. [280] [281] This prohibition has existed since 1945. [90] They also do not eat blood-based foods, such as blood sausage. [282]
R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271 is an English criminal law appeal in which the Court of Appeal decided, being a court of binding precedent thus established, that the refusal of a Jehovah's Witness to accept a blood transfusion after being stabbed did not constitute an intervening act for the purposes of legal causation.
Though Jehovah's Witnesses view "Abstinence from blood" to have health benefits, their basis for the belief is a spiritual rather than medical in nature. Their stand on blood has historically been to reject whole blood transfusions or any of the four major components of blood, ( red blood cells , white blood cells , plasma and platelets ).
In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. [36] [37] Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." [38]
Since Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to accept external blood products, their view on organ donation is complicated by the medical procedure itself. [8] Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that organ donation with no transfusion of blood is an individual decision. [2] [10]