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]
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 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]
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]
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 ...
Upon appeal by Jehovah's Witnesses, the fine was acquitted. [135] In 2022, a court case filed by a disfellowshipped woman was subjected to judicial review by the Supreme Court of Norway. [136] Jehovah's Witnesses were denied funding as a religious community for 2021. [137] A counter lawsuit was launched by Jehovah's Witnesses. [138]
Knocking is a 2006 documentary film directed by Joel Engardio [1] and Tom Shepard that focuses on the civil liberties fought for by Jehovah's Witnesses.It focuses primarily on the stories of three Jehovah's Witnesses, and how their lives demonstrate three fundamental Witness teachings that have affected society in general: Conscientious objection, and rejection of blood transfusions and ...
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.