14 Year-Old Boy Dies For Religious Reasons
"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," he said, according to The Associated Press. "I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."
But Lindberg refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds. Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is impure to receive a blood transfusion; they do not typically refuse other forms of medical care.
The Watchtower Sept. 15, 1961 "Is it wrong to sustain life by infusions of blood or plasma or red cells or the various fractions? Yes. The law that God gave to Noah and which applies to all his descendants makes it wrong for anyone to eat blood, that is, to use the blood of another creature to nourish or sustain one’s life."
"Whether whole or fractional, one's own or someone else's, transfused or injected, it is wrong"
Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom pp.183-184 "Beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses."
The "divine requirement", once again, speaking for God. I guess God changed his mind because fractions became acceptable.
The Watchtower June 1, 1990 p.31 "That some protein fractions from the plasma do move naturally into the blood system of another individual (the fetus) may be another consideration when a Christian is deciding whether he will accept immune globulin, albumin, or similar injections of plasma fractions. One person may feel that he in good conscience can; another may conclude that he cannot. Each must resolve the matter personally before God."
Luke 16:10 "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."
Related Reading: First Time Donating Blood
2 comments:
The only two non-condemnatory blogs I have seen on this subject came from two persons who may actually be qualified to speak since they knew or spoke to people involved. Everyone else was doing knee-jerk reactions from the newspaper account.
One of the blogs (by a friend of Dennis) says this:
"A related side note: I have read twenty years of the New England Journal of Medicine's articles on what he had. In the list of treatments recomended, Blood transfusion was not mentioned. The only reason they recommended it was to try to buy more time for the blood thickening drugs to bring the levels up so he could accept the continuation of chemotherapy. Also, they got to it too late. He'd already had leukemia for a long time and nothing could save him; the only thing a transfusion could do was extend his misery a couple years at most."
The other (by a med student who spoke to some involved) says this:
"The treatment denied by the judge was not the stem cell transplant. It was a blood transfusion. Why is this distinction important? Stem cell transplants are the single most expensive procedure in medicine (hundreds of thousands of dollars just to do the procedure). We do them (and many health insurers cover them) because they work, but not all patients facing leukemia choose to be transplanted. Some cannot afford it. Some do not want to go through the pain of the procedure. Others (like this patient) have different reasons. If after providing all of the information, the patient does not consent to a procedure, the medical"
Hi Tom! Thanks for sharing their comments.
It is sad to see that Dennis didn't have many options left. However, such instances are the minority.
The reason that most Witnesses negate such treatment is because they believe God hates it and it is anti-biblical.
The Society's doctrine is arbitrary and unfounded on Scripture.
Actions that are allowed now, but were prohibited then, costed countless lives. A young girl in my congregation included.
Post a Comment