Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
The court also stated that, "even though the Jehovah's Witnesses whose opposition to blood transfusions was cited in evidence were adults having legal capacity to refuse that form of treatment, the findings of the Russian courts can be understood to mean that their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of ...
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.
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 ...
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]
[284] [285] Their literature implies that there is a blood alternative for every medical situation and "emphasizes the danger of blood transfusions". [138] Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the transfusion of "whole blood, packed red cells, platelets, white cells or plasma".
The statement in question summarises the section, Acceptance among Jehovah's Witnesses, and the material there confirms that the proportion of JWs who are willing to accept blood transfusions is not "an infinitesimal, imperceptible comparative amount".--Jeffro 77 07:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Virtual person - reliable source, only here.