The commandment to abstain from blood is to not eat blood with the flesh
Even plasma is derived from blood
Genesis 9:3-4
King James Version.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Deut: 12:23 talked about eating blood. Taking in blood into your body. This is a common practice amongst pagans those days that made God to instruct his people not to do same because blood represents life.....a sacred part of the existence of things God created.
drlaykay:
Speak less of topics you don't know much about. There are complications to every procedure. As far as consent has been sought, the doctor is not liable to any complications that arise. In this case, the consent has been given by the law court. They can go ahead to sue the court if they wish. They will still lose.
Complications for consent not granted by the family. Even if the court grants it, you're still involved if they sue. You took the mater to court yourself. What the court just did is a breach of human right and can be countered by a higher court. The court has no right to decide medical issues for the family. They are other safer ways of treating people without blood but they forced their opinion on the family.
Allow the family chose their type of complications to deal with.
What do you expect from people wey dey follow man-made doctrine?
Was with a Medical Doctor friend in his clinic way back , soon after our Service year when without waiting for the protocols, a young couple alongside some relatives,rushed in this cute little baby girl who was running a high fever and looking so pale and breathing so weakly.
There was panic and tension. The mother was crying. A quick examination done, my Doctor friend told them the baby needs a blood transmission for starters.
To my greatest shock,the crying mother screamed...'Noooooo! We are Witnesses, it's against our religion '! Boy!!
She held my guy and asked him to seek alternative way to save her baby. My friend had to refer them to a bigger hospital but tell you what! Before they left the clinic,the baby demised! That was 22 years ago!
She would have been a beautiful grown up woman by now.
Very sad situation when people put their wrong beliefs before life.
Wahala
Until the realise that the moment their religious leaders stated components or fractions of blood are acceptable for injection or transfusion makes the doctrine on blood transfusion a senseless policies or procedures where are judged or disciplined based on their conscience.
I suggested, how? How exactly? And, by the way, in a thousand and one cases (the case I quoted inclusive), receiving blood transfusion when advised would buy a patient more time...whether metastatic cancer or not.
In our system, even though it's true that things are not optimal, in standard hospitals, blood transfusion is actually very, very safe. And, no, 70% of the cells are not dead or compromised as long as the procedure and handling of blood follow standardized protocols (which is what happens even in Nigeria).
Don't try to force a narrative that's distant from my initial post, please. This is exactly what you are attempting to do, and it's not a honest way to hold a conversation.
Thanks.
Oga, I'm quoting an experienced transfusion practioner who is not a Jehovah's witness yet she said she will never accept blood transfusion in Nigeria.
Nigerian Constitution respects people's faith and their decisions on health matters. As for the minor children their parents' decision is binding on them.However if the child is 14 or 16 ,he has becomes a minor adult who can speak for himself. A lot of judgements in Nigeria up to Appeal Courts and Supreme Court have been given to the right of Jehovah's witnesses to practice their religion according to their conception including their objection to blood transfusion.
Modern medicine has gone beyond blood transfusion because of the risks it possesses.Bloodless surgeries are most preferred by many doctors both abroad and in Nigeria. A woman who is a JW was operated upon some weeks ago in Nigeria.She is hale and hearty after the bloodless surgery.
Let us see what we happen after this exparte order by the magistrate who seems not to be aware of the extent judgements in related cases in Nigeria
RandomFellow:
The parents should be made aware that if they fail to grant the child her right to life by refusing her blood transfusion, and she dies, they'll be imprisoned for 25 years each; with hard labour!
This law should be made to help preserve life, especially in cases where it is preservable.
Imagine losing your life because your parents decided to force their own misguided beliefs on the innocent child who knows nothing about religion or faith.
they will gladly go to prison, even if it was for a 100 years. That's how strange and strong their misguided faith is, as far as they feel it's still part of suffering because of their faith.
Thank God for whoever brought the matter to court and the quick judgement/order given!!!
There should be a law against this rubbish religion ... So their religion permits life to end than to take blood transfusion??
I can bet with my left ball that even their so called head would have taken blood transfusion secretly at some point time while telling their followers to not do it!!!
MaxInDHouse:
In this side of the world people acting on what they have little or no knowledge about is common.
Blood Transfusion is no longer tenable as a safe means of treatment around the world.
Though God has warned His worshipers thousands of years ago to abstain from blood {Genesis 9:4} stating it'll guarantee good health {Act 15:28-29} but faithless people feels the book (Bible) shouldn't be the sole determinant of whatever they choose to do with their lives as it's an old book written by people they don't know.
Today health practitioners around the world are enlightening their people against the hazards of blood transfusion.
Ignorance
And where did Jesus or the Apostles warned about blood transfusion.
We are not under the law, all laws given Israelites from Gen to Det does not have anything on today's Christian
Deut: 12:23 talked about eating blood. Taking in blood into your body. This is a common practice amongst pagans those days that made God to instruct his people not to do same because blood represents life.....a sacred part of the existence of things God created.
The command is specifically not to eat blood. If bloods given to give life, life for life, where is the commandment against this?
Deuteronomy 12:23-25
King James Version
23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.
24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.
25 Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.
MaxInDHouse:
In this side of the world people acting on what they have little or no knowledge about is common.
Blood Transfusion is no longer tenable as a safe means of treatment around the world.
Though God has warned His worshipers thousands of years ago to abstain from blood {Genesis 9:4} stating it'll guarantee good health {Act 15:28-29} but faithless people feels the book (Bible) shouldn't be the sole determinant of whatever they choose to do with their lives as it's an old book written by people they don't know.
Today health practitioners around the world are enlightening their people against the hazards of blood transfusion.
You posted side effects of blood transfusion but you ignored the importance of blood transfusion.
And who told you we don't transfuse patients again? What kind of scam.mer are you ffs? We give blood transfusions regularly. I have had this convo with you but you prefer falsehood(and your denom thrives on it) to the truth. Blood is a life saver. We do blood drives regularly. We give women bleeding after birth and people who have massive bleeding blood. Blood substitutes like hemacels, erthropoietin etc simply won't work since they take time. Before they boost the blood, the patient is already long dead especially those 2 instances I gave.
Yes blood transfusion has some dangers just like any medications. But the pros far outweigh the cons. We weigh the benefits and decide its safe. All those side effects listed can be avoided. I have transfused more than 100 patients since my housejob days and never had a mortality. I had only 2 pyrogenic reactions which is mild fever that go away but transfusion still continues.
Max you should be off Nairaland for misinforming people. Look at the gullible folks liking this your comment
Be ready to take care of the complications too should it go south. Cos the parents have the right to sue you for going against their wish and putting them in a mess of taking care of complications.
No. You can't sue. We are covered by law in such cases. In this case, if the transfusion goes south, there's nothing anyone can do. But these are rarities
Complications for consent not granted by the family. Even if the court grants it, you're still involved if they sue. You took the mater to court yourself. What the court just did is a breach of human right and can be countered by a higher court. The court has no right to decide medical issues for the family. They are other safer ways of treating people without blood but they forced their opinion on the family.
Allow the family chose their type of complications to deal with.
The court has no right to decide medical issues for the family? That is the law of the country. How can you say your wish is above the law? That's really funny. Adults have the right to decide anything for themselves, but it's different for children.
Blood transfusion remains the most sensible and safest means. I work for one of the best medical establishments in the world and that is the stance.
Please look beyond religion and face reality. Even the doctrine was a misinterpretation of the holy book
jmichael259:
Blood transfusion itself is not treatment and in a sane country, things can be done without it.
It might be fewer but it's not unusual nor unheard of for people to refuse chemotherapy, invasive surgery, transplants, resuscitation, blood transfusion etc
The sad part of this is that this is a country where Doctors are still using 1945 methodologies. They don't know any other things to do in such situations in case of unavailability(which is a frequent occurrence in our hospitals) or refusal of transfusion. They don't have plasma and other blood replenishment or blood recycling equipment, they don't even know what those things look like.
[b]For the people involved in this particular matter, having to wait till now to attempt to remove the child is a sign of being unprepared or even negligent. The child should have been gone at the first sign of opposition or inability to ister treatment. You have no business there in the first place if you did your homework or actually aligned with the people of your fath.
Do not get pregnant and have kids if you cannot think, plan and save ahead. If the child has a condition or your faith denies some treatment methods then you should have arranged such matters with hospital liaison committees long time ago. A prepared person has no business being in a place where outsiders are now trying to impose, veto or retrace steps for you.
Fortunately, There are thousands of modern hospitals and doctors with experience to cater for these and many more cases such as Laser removal of kidney Stones without surgery, alternative care without chemotherapy, treatment without blood etc
Do not use faith as excuse for blood transfusion if you'll fail to monitor and comply with precautionary measures against drop in blood levels or having emergency s of similar faith doctors or hospitals that are able to handle your case. A person whose faith doesn't allow meat, will go out of their way to find and learn to prepare nutritious and strengthening vegetable based meals.[/b]
Are you aware of the cost and unavailability of bloodless surgery on Nigeria? Of course not.
Also in emergency situations like post partum hemorrhages and massive traumatic hemorrhage, what should we do?
Organ transplant like kidney was banned to until they changed it. The litigation will be too much to lift blood ban. They can only say we told our it is a conscience matter but we know when caught in blood transfusion you are automatically seen as disfellowhipped or disassociated paapaa.
Never was aware of this...
No JW I know have been able to answer this for me. They'll always point at this ancestor's lack of religious belief... And shift topic. As a lazy pesin wey I be, I don't even have strength to now argue or demand for straight up answers .. My little strength is better spent on something else that I like
MaxInDHouse:
In this side of the world people acting on what they have little or no knowledge about is common.
Blood Transfusion is no longer tenable as a safe means of treatment around the world.
Though God has warned His worshipers thousands of years ago to abstain from blood {Genesis 9:4} stating it'll guarantee good health {Act 15:28-29} but faithless people feels the book (Bible) shouldn't be the sole determinant of whatever they choose to do with their lives as it's an old book written by people they don't know.
Today health practitioners around the world are enlightening their people against the hazards of blood transfusion.
Which of those scriptures you mentioned talks about blood transfusion?
MaxInDHouse:
In this side of the world people acting on what they have little or no knowledge about is common.
Blood Transfusion is no longer tenable as a safe means of treatment around the world.
Though God has warned His worshipers thousands of years ago to abstain from blood {Genesis 9:4} stating it'll guarantee good health {Act 15:28-29} but faithless people feels the book (Bible) shouldn't be the sole determinant of whatever they choose to do with their lives as it's an old book written by people they don't know.
Today health practitioners around the world are enlightening their people against the hazards of blood transfusion.
Delusionally, delusional, delusion answer. Why do JWs don't have their hospitals? are even advised against tertiary education. Next to Islam is jws. They promote more of ignorance than knowledge.
MaxInDHouse:
In this side of the world people acting on what they have little or no knowledge about is common.
Blood Transfusion is no longer tenable as a safe means of treatment around the world.
Though God has warned His worshipers thousands of years ago to abstain from blood {Genesis 9:4} stating it'll guarantee good health {Act 15:28-29} but faithless people feels the book (Bible) shouldn't be the sole determinant of whatever they choose to do with their lives as it's an old book written by people they don't know.
Today health practitioners around the world are enlightening their people against the hazards of blood transfusion.
