Emma Gough, 22 and of Jehovah faith died when she refused a blood transfusion. She had JUST given birth to twins and is also survived by her husband.
I just cant understand this. The blood transfusion could of saved her life. This is a life she is now going to miss with her new children and her husband. I know the Jehovahs argument is, well she wouldnt go to heaven if she broke this rule - but isnt it worth the risk? Surely you should live your life first and foremost and whatever happens after happens. There are NO promises to even say that there is heaven/paradise. It can't be proven.
I find one who puts there religion before their Childrens life, their loved ones life and more importantly, their own life - extremely selfish and down right stupid.
Discuss. Cathy - Top contributor? I dunno how, your answer was ridicilous. It doesnt matter what we would rather die than do. She died for refusing to accept blood. Pathetic decision by a pathetic religion. Thats the scale of it. Death is unnatural, and saddens every reasonable person. It seems crass, however, to turn a tragic death into a platform for one's opinionated rantings.
This tragedy occurred nearly two weeks ago, on October 25, 2007. Despite what pro-blood activists and anti-Witness critics might pretend, her doctors informed the family that Mrs. Gough would have died even if she had received blood transfusions.
That's little consolation, but it is unsurprising.
During a hemorrhagic event, artificial expanders almost always work better than blood itself at keeping veins and arteries from collapsing. In addition, targeted treatment of specific blood fractions is considered preferable to old-fashioned "throw everything at it and see what sticks" thinking of whole blood transfusions. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses generally accept artificial products and fractions derived from plasma, platelets, and red/white cells.
Since Jehovah's Witnesses only refuse whole blood and its four major components, doctors still have many many proven products and techniques. In fact, many or most doctors have come to prefer these products and techniques for ALL their patients.
It is not Jehovah's Witnesses who decide that blood is sacred. It is Almighty God who declares it so, as the Divine Author of the Holy Bible!
As God's spokesman and as Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ made certain that the early congregation reiterated, recorded, and communicated renewed Christian restrictions against the misuse of blood.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine or anti-technology, and they do not have superstitious ideas about some immortal "soul" literally encapsulated in blood. Instead, as Christians, the Witnesses seek to obey the very plain language of the bible regarding blood.
As Christians, they are bound by the bible's words in "the Apostolic Decree". Ironically, this decree was the first official decision communicated to the various congregations by the twelve faithful apostles (and a handful of other "older men" which the apostles had chosen to add to the first century Christian governing body in Jerusalem). God and Christ apparently felt (and feel) that respect for blood is quite important.
Here is what the "Apostolic Decree" said, which few self-described Christians obey or even respect:
(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.
Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.
A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?
Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses believe these Scriptures apply to blood and the four primary components which approximate "blood". An individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to accept a targeted treatment for a targeted need, including a treatment which includes a minor fraction derived from plasma, platelets, and/or red/white blood cells.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?art...
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.... Use the search questions option and you can read several hundred comments made about this yesterday, including my own. What else do you expect from such mean spirited people? JWs consider taking someones blood as taking their life. As a 17 gallon donor, I disagree. already have mate
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind... There's nothing to discuss.They are so brainwashed over a period of time(by parents/grandparents).It's what they believe so why discuss it.
I personally think all Jehovah's are in cult like denial,are mad as hatters and incredibly selfish...but mostly I just think their mad.Problem is they truly don't care what us non believers think.
Added:Here's a thought for all the Jehovah's in here....This lady was an adult,she made an adult choice to get pregnant,she made an adult choice knowing the risks involved in child birth and was willing to die for a religion in which she strongly believed.What a selfish twat this women really was,by dieing for her belief she has left two children motherless,they don't know about religion yet,but they did not make a choice,they as newborns are incapable,in years to come it will be interesting to see exactly what her children think about them growing up without a mother who would rather die to go to the kingdom of heaven than spend an earthly life with them.She took away any choice they had in the matter....how is that God's will? What I cant understand is that a doctor will stand by and allow this to happen as she has stated that she does not wish to have a blood transfusion ,so therefor chooses to take her own life due to RELIGIOUS BELIEFS,and yet a woman who is riddled with cancer who has know quality of life and wants to die is refused this.Where is the logic in that what is the difference. I don't believe in this religion, what kind of religion would let a young woman just starting her life with a new family die?????????? and what kind of parent's would leave their child bleed to death..............I cannot understand this at all. This shouldn't be allowed the doctor's should step in.They won't allow old people to die with a bit of dignity and yet they allow this.........the laws should change............ Many people have lines they won't cross (for reasons of religion or personal philosophy) even if it means that they'll lose their lives.
Many, many of my people have died for refusing to eat pork, etc., when the purpose was to get them to belittle or renounce their religion.
Other examples are various types of Christians refusing to give up their religious practices and being killed for it, people dying defending their shrines, and the list goes on. I don't see why there's a need to suddenly jump on the JWs for doing the same thing. Isn't there something you'd rather die than do? I can think of several. If you can't think of any, that worries me. As an FYI, unless she was one of the 144,000 she wouldn't go to heaven ANYWAY, she'd be dying and be resurrected on earth after this system of things passes away.
The bible says to abstain from blood. Abstaining, in thir eyes, is abstaining, PERIOD. She did what she thought was right. Do I condone it? No. But I do understand that was her decision to make. It sounds like assisted suicide and if she was a catholic this would have seen her being refused entry in to heaven all religions have their rules but this one must be wrong , That shows you they have rejected Jesus because the eating of blood was done under the law of Moses where it was forbidden. Jesus ended the law! I heard they were changing the rule so its left up to your conscience. One would have to ask why is God still excepting sacrifices? It's a cult and that's what cults do is control! This was talked about many times yesterday. Here is what I had to say on the matter.
Both my husband and I both will stand for each other beliefs in this matter... I would NEVER want him to compromise HIS faith, nor mine!!! Granted, it would be hard to sit there and watch someone you love die, but it would be harder living my life or him, his knowing that they did something against our Father Jehovah, whats the point? Really? There is none! If he would have done what you suggested, Jehovah could have read his heart and knew that this is what he was "planning" and he may not have been forgiven. You see, its not about "religious leaders" its about what Jehovah wants and what he tells us to do. So to answer your question, on the Day of Jehovahs Wrath, he will be able to stand there with a great big smile and a clean conscience knowing he did the RIGHT thing, also knowing that this wicked old system is almost over and that his kids very soon will get to meet their mother because he did NOT compromise his faith!
Jehovah considers blood as something sacred... He also tells us to abstain from it......
If you were to go to a doctors office and they said... No more alcohol ....Would you think that means just drinking it... Would you think it meant it was OK to take a needle and pump it in your body since your doctor just told you no more "alcohol"? No, that would be silly!
The same is with the scripture in the Bible... Jehovah says to ABSTAIN from blood...... This would encompass EVERY aspect of it, not just a form of it.
It is not a form of brainwash... it is a matter of looking at the scriptures and making application of it in YOUR life.
Anyone who tries to find a way around that scripture is looking as the scriptures put it "lovers of themselves" because they are not seeking to please God. At that point they are being selfish because Jehovah is very clear on the matter. We do have many different other things we can take in place of blood, but a straight blood transfusion is NEVER up for question!
If it a chose of dying, or doing what God says, which is to abstain from blood, I will abstain from blood!!! My everlasting life depends on it. Why would I want to do something just for a temporary life and disobey Jehovah when he can give me my life back by resurrection? I was faced with this very question, not once, but twice. While I was pregnant both times, I had low platelets. Because of my low platelets there was a chance I could bleed at both delievers, both being C-Sections. (over 9lb babies, one of them breech) One of the doctors told me she was in the life saving business, and asked me if I wanted to live for my baby. Well what do you think? Any normal persons answer is YES, as any JWs answer is! We want to live!!!!! We don't want to die!! We tell the doctors to take the BEST care of us they can! There are many different things you can do to help us, but the one thing we ask is NO BLOOD because it goes against the Bible. Again, WE WANT TO LIVE! We don't want to die. But when it comes to your life on the line, we have to pray to Jehovah because we know that if we are faithful to Jehovah, if we were to die, we have the hope of having our life back. Though if we disobey Jehovah, what good is life for us? We have disobeyed our father, and our everlasting life could be gone, our hope, our purpose, gone. Blood is something very scared to Jehovah. Everything that he asks for us is for our own good. If my childrens life were on the line and they needed a blood transfusion, granted it would be the hardest thing I would ever have to do in my life, I would say NO to a blood transfusion for them because Jehovah rejects it. There are many other things that can be done for them. You better believe I would be telling those doctors to do EVERYTHING in their power to save my children, except NO BLOOD. I love my children with all my heart!!!! This would be the BEST decision I could make for them. Back to my story of the low platelets.... Many doctors did NOT want to work on me.... Wanna know why? Because they wanted to have the "blood" to fall back on if they got sloppy.... Well, I found a doctor who knew where I stood, and while he did not agree, he would abide by my wishes. He did both of my deliveres, and my scar as commented on by the nurses was the best they had ever seen!!! He knew he couldn't get sloppy with me.... He took precaution in the operating room since he knew what he was working with. Each time I went into the hospital I had some other people that came with me (Elders) and they were there prepared to help me when I needed them to take my stand and to help me inform the doctors of what treatments I wanted. (Because there are SOOOO many to chose from) How do I feel since I took my stand for what my father Jehovah has told us to abstain against? GREAT! I feel like I did not let Jehovah down even in the possible chance of death, or possible health problems associated with great blood loss. It was scary, but I knew I had to do it that way, I wouldn't have done it any other way. You know what, at both of those deliveres, everything went fine. My blood pressure got a bit low, but everything went well.. I did loss some blood but because of the precautions took, everything was fine. (Pumping me up with extra fluids before we went back for surgery and just extra little things) I will continue to serve Jehovah with my family and do what he asks of us because it is the best way for life, and teaching my kids what Jehovah wants is teaching them love.
Update~~~
If something I said here interests you..... Just let me know or any JW for that matter... Everything here can be proven out of YOUR OWN copy of the Bible. Should we not all abide by our conscience. Can you confirm she wouldnt have died anyway? Do you know for a fact what went wrong?Many women die in children every day and nothing is said. So to die faithful to your strong belief is commendable and I am sure her family are stronger as a result. Is it unknown for someone to die for what they truly believe. Do you know if a transfusion would definately have saved her life?
Are you aware of the many, more effective, alternatives to blood transfusions that Jehovah's Witnesses do accept and that medical staff are trained to use?
Do you know which of these alternatives were used in this case?
You really think it is ok to risk salvation for a few more years, months, weeks, minutes of life?
There are promises of heaven/paradise, they are in the Bible. She did not put her religion before her children, her children will live on. Emma died believing that she will see them again and will spend eternity with them.
If Emma was extremely selfish and stupid she would have taken the blood to (supposedly) save her life and ignored the dangers associated with transfusions.
-------------
Weasel - Considering the question, I'll take that as a compliment. In the spirit of fairness, I would encourage you to look into the dangers of blood transfusions, the many alternatives available, bloodless surgery and ones other than the Witnesses who refuse blood, including the countless success stories of people surviving surgery without having a transfusion.
------------
While it is true that Jesus ended the Mosaic Law, the command to abstain from blood was also given after Jesus death.
Acts 15:19, 20 "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."
Acts 15:28, 29 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves 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 and from fornication."
Notice the distinction between 'things strangled' (unbled meat) and blood itself. These verses are basically telling us to abstain from unbled meat and abstain from blood. If these verses are refering to just animal blood, why mention 'things strangled' and blood as well, since they would be one and the same.
The Bible aside, blood is not a safe treatment and the medical community agrees. Jehovah's Witnesses want the best treatment for themselves and their children and they do not believe blood transfusions to be the best treatment and would go for an alternative.
---------------
If someone loves their spouse, it is ok for them to risk their life for him/her. If someone loves their country, it is ok for them to risk their life for it and be called a hero as a result. If someone loves their God and His commands, it seems it is not ok to risk their life in keeping those commands. Jehovah Witness is a religion based on works more than faith & scriptures are taken out of context & used to sway those not familiar with the Word.
True in the New Testament it says not to eat blood. Their reasoning is since you can be fed through a tube a transfusion is the same as eating blood. But if you get that technical then all poultry would have to be kosher & red meat would be forbidden. Yet it isn't. That's what I mean by picking & choosing what to follow.
It is sad and happens far more frequently than we realize. Just like there are those who won't receive a dr.'s treatment, meds, etc. because they believe God will or has healed them. I'm not disbuting God can & does heal. I've witnessed it. But to do it this way is almost like daring God not to heal. Plus I don't believe God would give dr.'s the wisdom & skills if it was wrong to use them.
It's really sad her blind faith in her RELIGION caused her to deny the healing God was offering. Why God chooses to heal some supernaturally, others through drs., meds, transfusions, etc. or not at all I don't claim to know. But love covers a multitude of sins. I honestly believe (no matter what her religion claims) that this would have been one of those covered under love. Those infants needed not only their mother, but her love. So I agree it was selfish. True. Furthermore, how can they think they are a restored form of original christianity if they ignore important poits (trinity, hell etc...) Yes well shame a mother valued life so little by refusing a blood transfusion,obviousley not what I would call good motherhood material so I hope in future they either force a transfusion or remove the children from these illogical so called parents as for the reason,well they tried to convert me and my wife,which was hilarious,when my wife told them she was an insulin dependent diabetic and how did they view that,they said it was fine,then my wife pointed out what she used was human insulin,once again they said it was okay because it wasn't dirivertive of blood,we couldn't work that one out...a true mother will do anything to protect her kids and to remain by their sides to watch them grow,to me this is the highest insult to common sense and the value of life itself....
Peace JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it. We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood as stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept other ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.
The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.
Acts 15:20 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication
When did the practice of blood transfusion started? According to wikipedia.org that it started "The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura". So do you expect the Bible to explicitly speak against medical transfusion of blood during the 1st century when during that time it wasn鈥檛 practiced? Or have you ever thought that just quoting a GENERAL instruction, i.e., to 鈥淎BSTAIN from Blood鈥?will suffice. How come in the Hebrew Scriptures it always state a SPECIFIC instruction to 鈥渄o not EAT blood鈥?but when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, it becomes a GENERAL instruction 鈥渁bstain from blood鈥?and NOT 鈥渁bstain from eating/drinking blood鈥?
The question then is, when Acts 15 states 鈥渁bstain from blood鈥?is it only for eating and drinking blood? At that time, early Christians, understood that 鈥渁bstaining from blood鈥?means not eating and drinking it because blood transfusion is not being practiced. If it was being practiced at that time, the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion". The early Christians also understood that they won鈥檛 use blood for medical reasons, that鈥檚 why they didn鈥檛 use blood to cure epilepsy.
The point there is 鈥渆ating and drinking blood鈥?means the blood goes IN to your body. So what the Bible says is that we abstain from blood going IN our body. This means that you can use blood for testing, clean it, etc.
If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, 鈥渁bstain from nuts鈥? that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused. If you have allergies to nuts, you鈥檒l understand. You don鈥檛 force your allergic kid to accept nuts , do you?
Have you ever wondered why in Rev 2:14, , Jesus has something AGAINST Pergamum, i.e., to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication, which reflects the original instructions in Acts 15:29?. Also, Jesus has something AGAINST some in Thyatira because Jezebel misleads Jesus鈥?slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols (From the original instruction in Acts 15:20, 29)? Many years have passed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation but the instruction from Acts 15:20,29 is still in effect. So you think, the instructions in Acts 15:29 are only temporary? And notice that the instructions given in Rev 2 are not only for Gentiles but to all Christians, even Jewish Christians.
The early Christians ate meat which are properly bled, but eventhough 100% of the blood wasn鈥檛 removed, they were still considered abstaining from blood.
Lev 17:10 states 鈥溾€楢s for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood鈥?br>
Notice ANY SORT OF BLOOD, so no faithful follower of God, eats blood of any sorts, animal or human. That鈥檚 why humans cannot drink or eat animal or human blood.
The prohibition for blood is repeated in Acts 15:28-29 but instead of just saying do not EAT blood, Acts 15 changed it to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, which is a general term to encompass not only eating, drinking of any sort of blood but the future use of blood in the body, which includes transfusion.
Notice too that the Bible doesn鈥檛 say abstain from nuclear bombs nor abstain from cannibalism, but the underlying principles found in the Bible can help us determine that we have to abstain from those things.
Is a subcomponent/fraction of the main components of blood, considered blood? In the case of an egg, is an egg white, egg yolk, still an egg? Is the subcomponent of an egg white, still an egg? Is oxygen, a subcomponent of water, water still? The same with blood, is one of the subcomponents of a main component still considered blood? Some will say yes, some will say no. This a personal decision we have to answer to God.
If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!. Acts 15:29 Please notice YOU WILL PROSPER, GOOD HEALTH TO YOU. (The word health here is all encompassing, not only limited to spiritual or physical health, otherwise it should have said Good spiritual or physical health to you.) Have you not wondered why Acts 15:29 EXPLICITLY stated those two reasons as why the Gentile reasons should abstain from blood and NOT the reason of maintaining peaceful relations with the Jews or other reasons?
For example, a few weeks back, a news reported:
鈥淚t doesn't matter how much oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, it cannot get to the tissues that need it without nitric oxide," said Dr. Jonathan Stamler of Duke University, leader of one of the research groups.
Blood vessels relax and constrict to regulate blood flow and nitric oxide opens up blood vessels, allowing red blood cells to deliver oxygen, he explained.
"If the blood vessels cannot open, the red blood cells back up in the vessel and tissues go without oxygen. The result can be a heart attack or even death," he said.鈥?br>
So without nitric oxide, blood cannot help supply back oxygen to the body. So to say that blood transfusion will save the woman鈥檚 life is not totally true.
There are some alternatives to blood, that each individual JWs can use depending upon their conscience.
So basically, if a JW lost a lot of blood, we would like to have the volume expanders and other nonblood products or practices that help replace the lost oxygen. Please see www.noblood.org
Other doctors though are recognizing the alternatives to blood transfusion. Please see this website.
http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...
The instruction in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for eating animal blood. Why? Do you know of any faithful follower of God who drank and ate HUMAN blood? Do you know of any God鈥檚 faithful followers who DRANK or ATE blood from LIVING animals or humans?
So the abstention of blood is for both animals and humans alike. People also die,i.e. loses LIFE, because of blood transfusion (AIDS, wrong blood types, etc).
Some misapplied Mark 5:25-34. 鈥?might on occasion have needs that would justify the breaking of these laws 鈥?br>
Answer : Making an implication that it is okay to disobey Gods law when life is involved or if you are in serious health is wrong. Question for you, is it okay to worship Satan if you know that someone will kill you if you don鈥檛? Notice that the woman showed great faith in Jesus. Aside from that, the Mosaic Law is going to end very soon so Jesus has showed compassion, and notice the woman trembled and got frightened, showing repentance and told Jesus the WHOLE truth. Definitely Jesus forgave her because the woman got healed. Today, most people who had blood transfusions do not show any signs of trembling and repentance eventhough the Bible clearly stated to abstain from blood. So remember obedience is better than sacrifice.
If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?
Early Christians died and were thrown in the lion鈥檚 den and killed because of their faith. Some have seen even their own love ones died , their children, husband, wife, relatives, and other kins because of having faith in Jesus. Were they wrong to choose death because of their Christian faith? Were they wrong to die because they chose not to show even a little sign of worship to the Roman emperor or eat blood sausage? This tragedy will have far-reaching repercussions. It would be comforting to think it might lead to some JWs thinking twice about their stance but, alas, that just won't happen. My concern is for Anthony Gough, the husband who supported his wife's decision (prior to giving birth) not to accept blood. Mrs Emma Gough was an adult capable of taking that decision for herself and she paid the price for that choice. Doctors cannot force treatments or medicines upon anyone who says 'No' to them. That is how it should be.
What should not be happening is the Watchtower Society getting off with their teaching on blood unchallenged. This is a doctrinal issue. If JWs could see how wrong their leaders' theology is, then they would think twice, but for as long as they remain convinced their leaders' interpretations are correct, there will be unnecessary deaths.
Their theology states that life is in the blood, it's a sacred gift from God, Jesus shed his blood to save us from sin and death, so to use blood to save life is to (somehow) undermine God's provision via Christ's blood. It's that last bit about using blood to save life which is faulty. You didn't ask for a theological treatise so I won't give it here but it can be shown from the Bible that the Watchtower's take on this is totally skewed. Only people who can get through to JWs at that level have any chance of getting them to think. (Even if there were no medical hazzards associated with blood, they would still refuse them, so it's not a medical issue.) All the hullaballoo about this tragedy will just make them think 'the world' is persecuting them for their faith. It's not persecution. It's genuine inability to understand. At the moment the hospital have not actually said why she died. All we know is she hemorraged after complications. Even if she had of been pumped with blood then she may still have died.
As usual the media are using it to sell a story, and everyone is falling for it.
For the mum to take this descision, which I am guessing was in no way lighthearted, she must have had no doubt in her mind that she would be later blessed for being obedient to God and doing what she felt was instructed in the bible.
At this time it might be worth remebering that Anita Roddick recnetly died after she had contracted Hepatitis C from a blood transfusion.
All Gods' laws are there for our protection! She did not act in selfishness, for if she took the blood she would be disobeying Jehovah and risking her everlasting life!
Also even with the blood transplant she COULD of still died, the media just want to make the JW look bad. She acted right, and think about this-
To accept the blood transfusions and to live about till about 80? 90? who knows but if she did that she would be throwing away her everlasting life! What would you pick? Everlasting life or a couple decades more on your life? Jehovah's Witnesses are a mind control cult. They are not true Christians.
They are utopians. They believe that only a certain, defined number of people are allowed to be in Paradise....and that their group is the only one that goes...and that their organization will form a theocratic body of Christ that will have dominion over the world and bring about an age of peace and harmony.
They have their roots in 19th century utopianism.
They do not think for themselves, but rather regurgitate what they have been taught by their elders. Some of them answer questions here with the same...exact....answer, obviously cut and pasted from a prepared document! |
