Is blood transfusion permissible in Jewish belief?

In England Witnesses go door to door in an attempt to convert people. Sadly this is more often than not greeted with scorn and foul derision. I, on the other hand, as a practising agnostic, invite them in and try to convert them.

Mudz, kudos to you. Porphyria - what a genius question!

Anonymous, what happened to you in those three weeks that caused you to u-turn so vehemently? It should also be noted that medicine evolved as it did because of the certain knowledge that blood is even more essential to life than water. We all know that we've only got a few days without taking in fluids but I challenge anyone to survive for just one second without blood. Why do you think keyhole surgery even exists? It will always be chosen before slicing someone open.

If god really exists then surely he would want us to use our brains for our own benefit.

This was quite enlightening. I am curious though, if blood transfusions were also considered as part of the prohibition and therefore disrespectful to G-d, would the commandment to preserve life override this?
Or another way to put it. If literally eating blood became a medically beneficial procedure that could save lives, which takes precedence?

Abraham -
Rochel Chein is correct. My father was a scholar of Talmud and the Rambam and medicine. Saving a life, or even improving health, take priority over almost all other laws. As long as you are not violating laws such as those stated above, one should do everything within one's power to heal the sick or save a life. It was taught to us that such a mitzvah is so important, that if a doctor says you must eat pork in order to live, that is what you must do.

As for everyone else - please debate J's Witnesses on another forum.

Shabat shalom.

From the tenor of your response, I am convinced that you are a Jehovah’s witness. Therefore, I know that your mind has already been made up. However, let me just remind you that when I said that witnesses do not have the freedom of using their own conscience, I was talking from the perspective of someone who had a close enough relationship with witnesses in school, at work, and in my neighborhood. Witnesses I have known are generally good people who are doing their best to please God. What kind of conscience are you talking about when the mere acceptance of a blood transfusion can get a witness in serious trouble with the faith? Put your own conscience to the test and prove me wrong. I challenge you to even once try to publicly voice your disagreement with a decision from the headquarters. You will see how fast you will be excommunicated on the basis of your so-called conscience. Believe me, you are not as free as you think, especially when men are allowed to play game with your life.

Mike was not attacking May Millar so much as providing a logical defense for Jehovah's Witnesses. Mike did some careful and accurate research regarding the latest medical techniques. I don't think May Millar even mentioned any personal experience with Jehovah's Witnesses. What Millar mentioned were the typical accusations Jehovah's Witnesses receive regarding the topic of blood transfusion. Jehovah's Witnesses place a high value on life, and view blood as the equivalent of a person's life. They do not treat this as a light matter. Witnesses understand the concept of death, and especially do not want it for their children. Jehovah's Witnesses do use their conscience on personal matters. How can you be so assured that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed to use their consciences? They choose to have their consciences shaped by Bible principles, so the choice is completely personal. Thank you Mike for that well-researched defense of your faith.

Mike,

I must say that I was disappointed that you chose to attack Mr. Millar who was talking from experience. You said: "Your comments concerning Jehovah's Witnesses are based on nothing more than hearsay, biased speculation and ignorance." As someone who has a lot of witness friends, I believe that you did not take the time to think before you answered. I have lost at least two witness friends who refused a critical blood transfusion. Now, I am not ready to criticize them for what they did since they were just following what they believed to be taken from the Bible. Nevertheless, let's be clear here, Jehovah's witnesses were never permitted to use their conscience on such personal matters. It is obvious that your religion has recently toned down the rethoric by allowing some modern procedures such as "cell salvage". However, you must at least acknowledged the fact that many sincere witnesses have already died needlessly because they did not have the "cell salvage" option before.

recently i had a discussion with one of my friend as she is doing her Post graduation in nursing.. in their studies she was taught that jews dont do blood transfusion(medical unbelief's in differnt culture)


i totally disagreed to what she said.. but ddnt know to check with whom...

so thanks a lot...

Shalom

Your comments concerning Jehovah's Witnesses are based on nothing more than hearsay, biased speculation and ignorance. Jehovah's Witnesses do not even believe in 'hellfire', as if a God of love would wish to torture anyone. Neither would they 'allow their children to die', nor do they give doctors and nurse a hard time. Jehovah's Witnesses have championed bloodless surgery, have set up almost 2000 hospital liaison committees worldwide. They can now undergo the most invasive surgery without blood transfusions, they can also benefit from numerous bloodless surgery techniques during accident and emergency care. Treatment techniques such as cell salvage, preoperative erythropoietin, bleeding control with the use of sonic scalpels, electrocautery, low central venous pressure anesthesia, blood substitute volume expander mean that it's never a case of 'letting someone die.'

There is a fast growing medical discipline called blood management, bloodless medicine , or blood conservation. According to these medical professionals and researchers blood transfusion is not that harmless as what people assume. Blood transfusion increase the mortality and morbidity of many patients. Strore blood loses a great deal of nitric oxide which is critical in oxygen transfer from blood to tissue.

See the website of society of advance and blood management and the publications of Dr Aryeh Shander.

I am happy to have this question answered by both Rabbi Menachem Posner and by your article. When I was young and in Melbourne, Australia, I worked for the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service for about 4 years. There was a substantial Jewish population in Melbourne and now I recall that blood transfusions are of course, acceptable by Jewish Law. However, there is one religion, (Jehovah's Witnesses) that totally prohibit blood transfusions, even to "save the life" of their own children. They give the good doctors and surgeons a hard time. However, in the event of a young child, they can override the parents decision "to let a child die" by getting legal permission. They say that their child would "be damned to hell" or something similar if given blood. I think they have gravely missinterpreted a passage in the Bible, pertaining to "human blood".

Shalom