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]
[283] [284] Their literature implies that there is a blood alternative for every medical situation and misleadingly "emphasizes the danger of blood transfusions". [141] Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the transfusion of "whole blood, packed red cells, platelets, white cells or plasma".
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]
A look at the history, beliefs and worldwide reach of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Who are they? What do they believe?
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 ...
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]