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.
It took her 18 years because McLeod and her husband are Jehovah's Witnesses and follow the practice of not accepting blood transfusions or any blood products for religious reasons.
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 ...
Days before COVID-19 causes businesses to shutter or stop certain services in March 2020, Stephanie Harkins started a new job in health care after moving to the Tampa area from Pennsylvania only ...
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.
This assertion isn't based on facts, but heart problems after vaccination have been reported in a very small number of cases. What we know about COVID vaccines and 'extremely rare' heart problems ...
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]