Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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]
Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the transfusion of "whole blood, packed red cells, platelets, white cells or plasma". Autologous blood donation, where one's blood is stored for later use, is also considered unacceptable. [286] Members may accept some blood plasma fractions at their own discretion. [287]
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.
Based on their understanding of the Bible admonition to "keep abstaining from blood" (Acts 15:28-29), Jehovah's Witnesses refrain from accepting any blood transfusion or whole blood products. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the successor to the Apostles of the early church is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and their decisions are ...
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]
Katherine Jackson, a devout Jehovah’s Witness, raised all 10 of her children in the Jehovah’s Witness faith, and while some of them strayed as they reached adulthood, Michael remained committed.
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]