Essay on Jehovah Witness Beliefs

Introduction

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their blood for transfusion. An adult Jehovah's Witness, a 29-year-old woman with sickle cell anemia who was involved in a motor vehicle accident and who had previously expressed a wish not to receive blood arrived in an emergency room. There was no advance directive and she was not conscious at the time a decision needed to be made regarding transfusion. The family was consulted, and they stated the patient should not receive a transfusion. She will die without a transfusion and fully recover with a transfusion. What is the morally right thing for the emergency doctor in charge to do? We are assuming for this exercise that there are no laws covering this situation and that whatever the doctor does has no legal or career consequences for her. We also assume that the doctor is the only person who could do something in this situation, so no passing on of responsibility.) Should the Jehovah's Witness receive a blood transfusion that is life-saving or should they be allowed to refuse it due to religious reasons which then lead to their death? Well, the answer to that is simple, based on my ethics and morals, the Jehovah's Witness should most definitely receive the blood transfusion. To deduce that conclusion I have looked through three different perspectives. First is a religious perspective, a Jehovah's witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor because that’s technically suicide and that is technically something that the bible doesn't allow. The second perspective is a medical one, a Jehovah's Witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor because it's immoral for them to let their doctor allow them to die, that simply goes against the oath a doctor takes of not harm their patients. Lastly, there's the legal perspective, although there are no laws that specifically cover this situation, refusing life-saving treatment on purpose should be considered a form of suicide because that's technically inflicting self-harm which goes against universal human morals. To fully understand the pressure of the situation, we will also be exploring two counter-arguments present for why a Jehovah's Witness should be allowed the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion. The first counter-argument entails the matter of religious freedom. The second counter-argument describes the pressure and punishment from the religious community of those Jehovah's Witnesses who do accept blood transfusions.

Background Information

Some might ask what exactly is a Jehovah's Witness. Well, to put it, in a nutshell, a Jehovah's Witness is A variety of regular Christian views held through witnesses, however additionally many that are unique to them. They claim that the absolute best is God — Jehovah. The messenger of God is Jesus Christ who sinful human beings can use to repair their relationship with God. Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are living in their last days and are constantly looking forward to the impending establishment of God's kingdom. This kingdom will be led with the aid of Jesus Christ alongside 144,000 human co-rulers (Revelation 7:4). Those who renowned Jehovah in their lifestyles will become contributors to this kingdom in any other case those who reject him will no longer go to hell however will face complete extinction. Anyone new who wants to contribute will be baptized through immersion and is obligated to stay with the assistance of a strict code of private conduct and will. Marriage is regarded as a holy covenant, and divorce is disapproved of solely in situations of adultery. Witnesses take attendance in the annual commemoration of Christ’s death, celebrated on 14 Nisan of the Jewish calendar (March or April of the Gregorian calendar). Witnesses share bread and wine, symbols of the physique and blood of Christ. Only these concepts are among the 144,000 human co-rulers who eat and drink bread and wine. The Witnesses’ teachings stress strict separation from the secular government. Although they are generally law-abiding, believing that governments are established through God to keep peace and order, they refuse on biblical grounds to observe particular laws. They do not salute the flag of any nation, believing it an act of false worship; they refuse to be a part of military service, and they no longer take part in public elections. These practices have delivered them below the scrutiny of the authorities. The U.S. authorities dispatched Rutherford and many different Watchtower leaders to jail for sedition at some point in the course of World War I. In Germany before World War II, the Nazis dispatched Jehovah's Witnesses to concentration camps, and Witnesses had been additionally persecuted in Britain, Canada, and the United States. After the war the Witnesses delivered numerous cases in American courts dealing with their beliefs and practices, resulting in 59 Supreme Court rulings that were viewed as imperative judgments on the free exercise of religion. They continue to face persecution in several countries, however, commonly for their refusal to serve in the military, and they are frequently publicly derided for their door-to-door evangelism. The Witnesses’ distrust of modern establishments extends to other non-secular denominations, from which they continue to be separate. They disavow phrases such as minister and church. The leaders of some mainstream Christian church buildings have denounced the Witnesses for doctrinal deviation (especially their non-Trinitarian teachings) and have condemned them as a “cult.” Witnesses also oppose precise scientific practices that they accept as true that violate Scripture. In particular, they oppose blood transfusions, because of the scripture that is in opposition to the consumption of blood (Leviticus 3:17). This belief, which is contrary to properly acknowledged scientific practice, remains an additional aspect of controversy with authorities, in particular in situations involving children.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

This brings up the question of who we think should or should not be required to decide whether someone can agree or refuse to receive a life-saving transfusion. The answer to that is very simple, a doctor. Parents shouldn't have the right to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for either themselves or their kids. The lives of children should be put in the hands of those who are the most. And in this case, if it's not the parents (who will purposely refuse for their children to receive a life-saving blood transfusion) then it should be the doctor who is the most knowledgeable about the consequences that will occur if that situation took place. This brings about my three arguments each based on different perspectives.

So Why? Why should Jehovah's Witnesses not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor? My answer to that is, that a Jehovah's Witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor because it's immoral for them to let their doctor allow them to die, that simply goes against the oath a doctor takes of not harm their patients. It's also morally wrong for one human to let another human die even if it's for religious purposes. This is a valid argument because a doctor's oath is something very important and for them to break it by letting one of their patients die while knowing that their life can easily be saved by receiving a blood transfusion goes against all their practices. The premises for this argument are all true because the oath is an actual thing called the Hippocratic Oath which doctors take very seriously. An article published in the Harvard Medical School states, “As an important step in becoming a doctor, medical students must take the Hippocratic Oath. And one of the promises within that oath is “first, not harm” (or “primum non nocere,” the Latin translation from the original Greek.)”. The Hippocratic oath is truly something that is important to practicing physicians as it is the reason they wake up to go to work every day. It's a solid philosophy that always allows for the correct moral choice to be made: to save a life. That is why it is important for Jehovah's Witness to not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion because it will simply just contradict the philosophy and even the existence of a doctor if they allow a patient to die when it could have been prevented. Some anticipated objections are that some can say that there are many cases out there where a doctor has caused harm to their patients, therefore, going against their oath. To refute that, such instances are simply mistakes, no doctor is perfect so mistakes are bound to occur. It's only morally wrong if they willingly know that they are causing fatal harm, in which case that would render them murderers.

Furthermore, another reason why a Jehovah's Witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor is because that’s technically suicide and that is technically something that the bible doesn't allow. The argument is valid because the action of refusing a life-saving blood transfusion is technically committing suicide which is a contradiction to what the bible says about the act. This contradiction simply shows how flawed the idea of not receiving a life-saving blood transfusion simply is. The premises for the argument are true because the idea that committing suicide for reasons other than noble ones is condemned. In an article written by Paul Middleton called Suicide in the Bible it states “If [Suicide] is carried out for country or friends, or in the face of intolerable pain, incurable disease, devastating misfortune or shame, or to avoid capture on the battlefield, suicide constituted a noble death. Each of the instances of suicide found in the Bible fits comfortably with noble-death ideals. ” Since only noble-death instances were found in the bible this implies that suicide for other reasons is not allowed and is forbidden. It is also commonly believed that the 6th of the Ten Commandments of the Bible “You must not commit murder” includes killing oneself. Therefore by having the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion a Jehovah's Witness is contradicting the very teachings of the bible. In no way that letting oneself die by refusing medical aid would fit under the requirements for a noble death. This creates a contradiction in the branch of Jehovah's Witnesses which sways away from mainstream Christianity and simply makes it impossible to follow. For that reason, Jehovah's witnesses should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion. Anticipated objections are that religion can be followed to certain extents and one may be very religious and take what the bible says very seriously and one can be lightly religious and can simply ignore what the bible says about suicide. To refute that, religion exists to be followed to its fullest extent and this pertains to everyone that belongs to that religion. Picking when and whatever parts of a religion to follow is simply flawed and defeats the whole act of following the religion itself.

Looking through a legal perspective brings upon us the last reason why a Jehovah's Witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor which is that one can argue that refusing the treatment would imply a risk of self-harm or death (suicide) and that is a crime that goes against universal human morals. This is a valid argument because crimes are laws that are broken which should not happen. After all, laws exist for a reason as they are made to protect people. The premises for this argument are true because laws are usually made with the collective understanding of the prosperity and longevity of peace and stability in society. They derive from a universal human morality that is agreed upon by most of the human population except for a couple of outliers. There are at least two classes of feasible ethical universals. The first is a moral universe that prescribes what everybody ‘ought’ to do throughout all cultures, a universally binding morality. This is a common perception of “moral universal” in philosophy. The second is what all moral structures can be shown to have in common as cooperation techniques, except these empirical universals being in some way innately binding. A society may recommend and put in force such a moral universe as great for meeting their shared desires and preferences. In an article published on the Evolution Institute by David Wilson called Is There a Universal Morality? Introduction and Overview of Responses talks about the conclusions produced by the idea of a Universal Morality and that “These conclusions imply, for example, that morality is best understood not so much as a burden but as guidance for living a good life. Common moral norms such as the Golden Rule, and rules against theft, killing, and lying, are not moral absolutes but heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible, rules of thumb) for increasing the benefits of living in cooperative societies.” For a Jehovah's Witness, this would go against their teachings as it does not allow them to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, and would rather die instead. This would be considered suicide which breaks the law and also breaks the rules of universal human morality. Without Universal Morality, society would be in shambles as there would be no common understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Allowing a Jehovah's Witness the option to refuse life-saving treatment contradicts human morals and more importantly the set of rules that are derived from universal morality, the law! Anticipated objections against this argument that might exist may include the idea that there is the Right to refuse life-saving treatment. To refute that objection, the idea of still simply allowing another human to inflict self-harm knowing that they can be saved is simply immoral.

Looking through the eye of the opposition a counter-argument that one might have is that a Jehovah's Witness is simply following their religion. They believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their blood for transfusion. The belief is based on an interpretation of scripture that differs from that of other Christian denominations. The willing acceptance of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses has in some cases led to expulsion from and ostracisation by their religious community. This is a valid argument because religion is very important to some people and they will do anything to follow it even if that means refusing a blood transfusion and sacrificing themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that religious freedom is a basic human right that would allow them to do with their lives how they see fit. The premises for that argument are true because religious freedom is practiced and tolerated around the world. To support that all that is needed is the First Amendment of the United States which states 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' The freedom of religion allows the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses to believe that they have every right to be allowed to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion because they are simply following their religion which is allowed by the constitution.

The Second counter argument for why a Jehovah's Witness should have the right to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion is because the pressure and punishment from the religious community of those Jehovah's Witnesses who do accept blood transfusions are frightening. It's so frightening in fact that those who have either had a blood transfusion or are related to someone who had a life-saving or even a normal blood transfusion are put under so much pressure and punishment by the rest of the Jehovah's Witness that they would rather commit suicide. The article written by Jason Barker called New Watchtower Blood Transfusion Policy describes how severe the punishment is for accepting a blood transfusion. “the penalty for receiving a blood transfusion, be it whole blood or fractions of primary components, was severe: 'The receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshipping.'The circumstances under which the individual received a transfusion, or the repentance afterward, were irrelevant to the punishment incurred: '[Receiving a transfusion] is a violation of God's command to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon”. The concern of being punished and upsetting your religious community for accepting a life-saving blood transfusion itself is frightening enough for the thought to not even cross one's mind. This makes it easier to refuse a transfusion and make your religious community proud.

To recap, the arguments presented for why a Jehovah's Witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor is because that’s technically suicide which the bible doesn't allow making it a contradiction, it would go against the oath that a doctor takes of not harm their patients and it also goes against the law which is derived from universal human morality. The counter-arguments presented for that same question are that they have religious freedom which they believe is a basic human right and that the punishment and pressure would be overwhelmingly severe to handle if they were forced to accept the blood transfusion. The three arguments for not having the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion outweigh the counterarguments because the first argument alone shows a major flaw in the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. It explores the contradiction that they believe the bible says to not ingest any form of blood but it also goes against the act of murder or in this case not ingesting blood will result in death. The second argument regarding the Hippocratic oath is also very strong because one can argue that staying strict to the oath itself is similar to staying true to one's religion. The last argument involves universal morality which the law of inflicting self-harm is derived from, which is the very same moral code that would be broken if we allowed Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. These arguments have very solid foundations, unlike the counter-arguments of the freedom of religion and the overwhelming societal pressure to reject a transfusion. Humans do have the freedom of religion but that can turn into a subjective matter as religion is not definable by all standards. For example, someone can be a serial killer who considers it part of their religion to murder, but by all means that would not be acceptable in society. This point is further emphasized by a brief excerpt from an article by S Woolley called Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Adolescent Jehovah’s Witnesses: what are their rights? It states, The first JW case, concerning parental treatment refusal, to reach the US Supreme Court, challenged two statutes commonly used to declare children wards of court to administer blood, and sought a court order to prevent Washington physicians administering blood to JW patients. The Supreme Court was clear in its upholding of the decision in Prince explaining, “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose…the child…to ill health or death”. The second counterargument of the overwhelming societal pressure from their religious community to reject a transfusion is not solid enough to allow someone to die by giving them the option to refuse life-saving treatment.

Conclusion

A Jehovah's Witness should not have the option to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion from a doctor because it is simply the right thing to do. Life is very precious and getting the opportunity to stay alive is an amazing blessing. Millions of people die every year only because it's out of their control. If one has the option to receive a life-saving treatment then they should accept it.