Tolax17:


It's choice not being heartless. What about so many people(mostly young girls ) that fornicate severally, and many times abort. Many see it has normal. It's worst than refusing blood. Besides, is the patient that decide not to receive blood not her husband. She's an adult.
This story is fake

NwaAmaikpe:


So wrong of the woman to try to usurp her husband's powers as the head of the house.
At least she died for what her husband believed in.

Thank God for her husband that he did not lose faith even at a difficult time.

BestDataDeals:
I pity you all who believe this story and hence abuse Jehovah witnesses for something you know nothing about.

I am a Jehovah witness and I can say that if this happens, there are more than 1000 doctors in Nigeria that can treat that woman without blood.

You believe stories cooked up by lazy bloggers and start running your mouth like fools.

If one don’t die for what they believe in I wonder what else is there to die for

bigfrancis21:


Nope, according to JWs, after death you lay dead till resurrection day to repopulate the earth again.

femi4:
Go back and read this story, this time slowly.

One wickedness does not justify the other. Both are wickedness in God sight

Tolax17:

It's not wickedness but choice and what she believed in. St valentines died for love n till today he is celebrated. The woman chose to die for what she believed in and what's the big deal.
Besides the story is just an hoax.
Too many missing gap

kassano22:

You don't have all the facts, you weren't even there. Don't make quick judgements on issues you have little or no informations.
This same witnesses died because they refuse to take up arms and kill in wars. Please don't be the judge. We have a perfect judge already.

femi4:
Stop lying....I guess you miss this line

The woman cried with her pale eyes and begged the husband to allow the doctors transfuse but he refused bluntly.

fpeter:
Why do you people lift stories from Facebook and other groups, this particular post came from Rant HQ on facebook.
LAZY BLOGGERS!

Odianose13:


You are a Jehovah's witness, yet u call ur brethren fools. Be ashamed of ursef oga! U have just behaved non Christ-like!

I still respect the Jehovah's witness as a denomination

kassano22:

Ask Google
'Bloodless surgery'

wazobianaija:

Imagine what you just said. Anyway, you can read more about alternative to blood transfusion. Make use of google, you will learn. The issue is that most naija doctors have refused to upgrade when it comes to issue of blood transfusion and this is because they are just too lazy.

maasoap:

In Nigeria? For a pregnant woman who is in labour?

wazobianaija:
Its obvious this story was cooked up to mislead the public about JW cos many things there does not add up. But, the op and others like him should remember that no amount of misleading informations on nairaland will change anything about JW.

Reasons why JW dont take blood:

Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

Animal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood
Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.

Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God
Lev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)
Heb. 9:11-14, 22: “When Christ came as a high priest . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God? . . . Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”
Eph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”

How did those who claimed to be Christians in early centuries C.E. understand the Bible’s commands regarding blood?
Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.
Minucius Felix (third century C.E.): “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1956), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, p. 192.
Blood Transfusions

Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?
Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.
Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: “There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”
All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.” Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984 p. 5

culled from jw.org

MVLOX:
3

And you and most pple here also failed to note that people reject TRANSFUSION and also LIVE.

CAPTIVATOR:


So it was abstain from animal blood that you see there ?

wazobianaija:
Its obvious this story was cooked up to mislead the public about JW cos many things there does not add up. But, the op and others like him should remember that no amount of misleading informations on nairaland will change anything about JW.

Reasons why JW dont take blood:

Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

Animal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood
Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.

b]Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God[/b]
Lev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)
Heb. 9:11-14, 22: “When Christ came as a high priest . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God? . . . Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”
Eph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”

Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

b]
In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?[/b]
Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals.

Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.
Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged

There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”

All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs.

Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement

Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.”

The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984 p. 5

culled from jw.org

Hairyrapunzel:

Like it was abstain from blood transfusion or human blood you saw there. Mtcheww

Hairyrapunzel:




The story isn't cooked up. It is real. Stop trying so hard to hide the evil side of your cult




Your governing body even puts themselves on the same level as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit didn't tell you blood transfusion is bad your governing body and past leaders excluding Rutherford and taze said so.



Even your Bible you can't comprehend.it made mention of animal blood. Yet still no mention of blood transfusion a medical procedure used to save life. Nobody said humans should be eaten

[


Still Jesus Christ did not tell you that it is a bad thing using blood transfusion to save life. Maybe your Jehovah will have a problem with a medical procedure used to prolong life hear on the real earth.




Assumptions made for the early Christians by your self appointed leaders as usual. Well, the early Christians had no idea of blood transfusion. You can't change that. You cannot even assume for them on this. At the end of the day the ban on blood transfusion is an assumption made by watchtower because their leader in 1945 was an illiterate and had no idea on what blood transfusion was at that time. He just assumed it was bad and formulated theories based on the assumption that blood transfusion was included.






What sort of rubbish and deceitful explanation about blood transfusion is this? When a patient cannot eat, hypoglycemia is what will kill the patient while if a patient is bleeding profusely, hemorrhagic shock will kill the person. Parenteral nutrition is not the same and is different from blood transfusion. Intravenous fluid infusion is different from blood transfusion. Intravenous fluid infusion is not synonymous with fluid drinking or fluid eating.
That your alcoholic patient argument you people are always using can also be used this way:
If doctor prescribes using intravenous alcohol as treatment for a disease, both the alcoholic and non alcoholic will gladly accept.
In real life your explanation is unrealistic. Alcohol is a drink and can never be used iV. If you like quit or continue alcohol intake the fact still remains that it can't be taken intravenously. Doctors can't prescribe it.
On the other hand, blood transfusion is acceptable real life situation. It ain't food and doctors will give you when you're in dire need. Especially in life and death situation.
Last last no sensible explanation or reference that classifies blood transfusion as blood eating.




[
In all modern hospitals today No onewill give use all these things you listed when your hemoglobin level is less than 5g per dl. In all mordern hospitals today if you have acute massive blood loss the treatment is blood transfusion. In all modern hospitals today, doctors will give children blood transfusion if they need it irrespective of the parents beliefs. In all modern hospitals today blood transfusion is the only second line treatment for failure of those things you listed while there is no second line for blood transfusion procedure.






I don't think you have read this journal yourself. I think you quoted it from you website the way it is written there. For your information 1975 is a very old scientific journal to be referencing. Watchtower ought to be ashamed of their deceitful nature.
There are also disadvantages of using plasma substitutes in place of blood transfusion death, fluid overload, viral and bacterial infection.
There are risks involved in all medical procedures.
As there are disadvantages, so are advantages present for blood transfusions. Your leaders forgot to tell you that everything that has a disadvantage has an advantage also. For every 4.5million transfusions that will take place yearly only about 60 transfusion related adverse reactions will be recorded. Your leaders are biased lunatics. They have to always present a biased and cunning view of blood transfusion to make their beliefs acceptable.





Compare medical treatment in 1968 to recent times. No wonder you people still think all patients who receive blood transfusion must come down with transfusion related reactions.


: “
You lie. Quote your source. I guess watchtower magazines. Sorry we don't accept these in the scientific and medical world.



There you go again presenting a distorted and biased views of surgical procedures. Yes surgeries can be performed successfully without blood transfusions but not all surgeries can be performed without blood transfusions. Certain People will require it.




What was the outcome of all the surgeries performed? I guess it wasn't stated.


.”
Yes they used the procedure on all their heart patient. I guess all their patients had planned surgeries done. None of the patient was an emergency procedure done for someone
Who had acute massive hemorrhage with a hemoglobin concentration of less than 5g/dl and circulatory collapse.


(
It has been safely adapted. It didn't say used only in cardiac procedures in infants and children of jws. In Developed countries he USA where your leaders reside, children and infants will be given blood transfusion when the require it even if their parents object to it and their parents can not sue the doctor or the hospital.





Is only from jw. Org you can get rubbish like this.

dany4life:
it's a pity that your comments are filled with all sort's of insults and malicious bitterness, You don't need to be insultive to comment or make a point, You Guy's should use your strength for other useful things and stop allowing yourselfs to be manipulated by blogger's seeking attention the storyline simply tells us it's fictitious it never happened, no doctor will transfer the right of a talking sick patient to the husband to decide it's unconstitutional, even discussing the woman medical condition in the public for all to hear, and even took the story teller to the theatre where they discussed and the woman begging the husband. Don't be dragged into media war because of this!!

bigtt76:
Prior to going for an operation, the patient get their blood in a blood bank and if they need transfusion, they are given back their own blood. JW member's grouse is not with transfusion as a whole but being infused a blood from another person.

This is not movies dear ....even men going for cancer treatment have their sp3rms stored so that they can always fall back to that if the treatment affected their fertility.

try and read wide dear to learn more!

AkunnaTochi:
Crap. JWs have problems with transfusion. It isn't about someone else's blood. It is about blood transfusion.

Hairyrapunzel:


Your doctrine is responsible for the loss of life of jws Most especially pregnant women and children (in developing countries)
If you don't want my comments to continue, Then stop the deceitful, distorted and biased explanation regarding blood transfusion.

My views are not malicious. The fact is that they are contrary to your views. You can't be lying about blood transfusion and giving false medical statements about autologous blood transfusion aka bloodless surgery to make your beliefs acceptable.

Saying my view is malicious is a gross understatement. You can't deal with people having different views and not agreeing with you. Your leaders told you that blood transfusion is bad simple. Don't try to sugarcoat it and say it is the Bible that told you so.

Your doctrines and your beliefs are cruel to you people.

dany4life:
Pele oo!! anyone whose comment is not in line with yours is labeld a Jehovah's witness, called names, insulted, no body is telling you not to have your view but dont insult others, Reason in the line of my comment, the story is just a manipulation of a blogger, seeking attention, if you know which hospital did the story happen, what is doctors name, the hospital address, and the national daily that reported the news, And authority that authenticate the story, if you read my comment again you will understand my summation, (a blogger will just post a picture of an accident with a write up Christian travelling for a church program and ambushed by Muslims With ak47 and knife's!) Unsuspecting Nigerians will go into word Match and war on social media and on the streets, let's not be a victim!!

Hairyrapunzel:


Not all bloggers are liars dear and not all bloggers will describe the opposite of an event. This is something you don't know and that's because those 8 guys in New York keep lying to you guys. Don't judge all bloggers the way you judge one. Stop the black and white thinking. This one is very true. I have seen it happen so many times. Most especially with children and pregnant women whom their parents and husbands refuse blood transfusion. Don't try to sugar coat your evil doctrine. All bloggers can't be saying the same thing. It shows there is truth in their words

eyinjuege:


The truth is, the doctrine might be a dangerous belief, putting a lot of people at risk.
It is however still their decision, their beliefs, their choice.
They have the right to refuse any form of medical treatment and they can exercise that right provided the person in question is not a child, is not mentally incapacitated. Even if unconscious, its important to still stick by what the person would have wanted.