There are no more emotive stories than those like the following taken from an Australian newspaper in July 2000 but which could come from most countries in the world.

"Mrs Asciutto's faith was about to lead her to a decision few others would be prepared to make. Seriously ill after severe complications from childbirth, she refused a potentially life-saving blood transfusion. On Wednesday night she died in the Alfred Hospital, days after giving birth to a stillborn child, Jessica. Like Mrs Asciutto, Australia's 60,000 or so Jehovah's Witnesses remain committed to the church's doctrine forbidding blood transfusions."

This issue has been making headlines for a number of years and we need to be aware of the reasoning behind it so that we can understand such actions and help the relatives left behind. First then on what basis does the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses (Society) claim that God forbids blood transfusions?

The Society use, amongst others, three scriptures.

Genesis 9:4, "Don't eat blood," a law given to Noah and as we all come from Noah, a law for all mankind.

Leviticus 17:10, an established Israelite law which if broken warranted death.

Acts 15:28-29, the law was also a Christian command.
"Christians are commanded to 'abstain from blood'... the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in." (Reasoning from the Scriptures, WB&TS, pp.70-71).

Acts 15:28-29
These essential verses bring the matter of blood into the New Testament. But just what does the phrase 'abstain from blood' mean? It could not mean do not take blood transfusions because they had not been invented.

They were written in the light of the Old Testament law that eating blood was forbidden and the matter of sacrifices that looked forward to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the shedding of His blood. This is what they meant then, is it any different now? When did these verses change to include blood transfusions? They never have, this is something that the Society have added to try to boost their case.

We see that hundreds or thousands of people have been led to make a sacrifice with their own life or the life of a loved one not as they have been told because God demands it but because man has created a false doctrine. This shows that even what might be termed a 'harmless cult' in comparison with others can be deadly.

The Liberal Elders
The Society however is being challenged over the issue of blood and it has caused them to make some changes to their structure. At the latter end of 1997 some interesting articles appear on the World Wide Web - the beginnings of the well reserched site http://www.ajwrb.org. Elders of the Society who had concluded that the refusing of blood transfusions was wrong both morally and scripturally published their findings. They are still today determined to get the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to change their stance on blood and are even willing to take the case to Law.

The pages first began with the following explanation,

"Clearly, as Jehovah's Witnesses the Biblical perspective is the paramount issue. Just how compelling of a case can be presented for a scriptural injunction regarding the use of blood?… We will instead focus attention on those texts that have been used in support of the doctrine…"

What follows is an in depth look at many Bible verses and the writings of the early church fathers with a clear refutation to show that whatever the Society says, neither the Bible nor early church history bans blood transfusions.