The Blood Transfusion con claims another life

Humankind the core of religion

Religious fanaticism becomes ever so much a problem when some interpretation by a branch of religious adherence stands in the way of preserving life.

Jesus in His earthly days contended strongly with the religious leaders who paid much heed to religious observance than the care and nurturing of humanity.

It led His charge that Sabbath was made for man and not man for Sabbath, presaging the context that his hungry disciples could pick grain for food on the Sabbath when religious law forbids work and it forms the crux of the parable of the Good Samaritan where it was someone without the strict religious upbringing of not touching the unclean who exercised compassion to save the victim of a mugging.

Basically, the import of all His teaching was that the care and love of humankind bears the greatest importance and significance to their fellow human-beings beyond traditions, culture, customs, doctrines, diktat or beliefs.

In everyday words, we have done nothing for the advancement of humankind if we sacrifice people on the altar of creeds and laws when we should be focusing on preserving health, well-being and life.

Blood for life in transfusion

This brings a very harrowing tale to the fore, a lady of 22 gave birth to a set of twins, but complications ensued where medicine could have mitigated the situation through a simple blood transfusion, but because of religious beliefs, she refused this life-saving treatment and consequently died leaving her twins motherless and her husband (24) loveless to care for the babies.

I stand on the point that any religious adherence that compels the denial of parenthood is inherently evil, extreme, fanatical, cultish, ungodly and patently of the devil.

Contrived Biblical interpretation

Somehow, someone has read the Bible and come to the conclusion that the exhortation not to touch blood in the Old Testament automatically infers there should be no transfusion – as if transfusion was an everyday occurrence in those times.

I agree that we do need to adhere to certain religious beliefs if we are so inclined, but unnecessary martyrdom where remaining on earth to perform your duty as parent is concerned is folly at best and inexcusable to the top of the church hierarchy that espouses such teaching, at the very least.

One wonders if a parent is then allowed to treat the wounds of their children if they are not to touch blood that is not theirs.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses hold this belief dear and in the process many have met untimely deaths where a simple medical procedure could have preserved life, love and care.

Transfusion is acceptable

They - the Jehovah's Witnesses - went to the extent of providing a Fresenius Continuous Autologous Transfusion System (CATS) to a hospital in the UK, years ago, which allowed for blood from the same person to be collected and transfused if needed – this means they do recognise the medical benefit of blood being transfused to save life; they only cannot countenance the idea of the blood being from someone else, whereas, this in itself is a gift of life where in a majority of cases the donor would never know the receiver. In the vein of a Good Samaritan spirit.

Beyond that, why can blood not be transfused in the family, are they not blood relations? parent-child, sibling-sibling or spouse-spouse.

The whole principle and doctrine begins to fall apart when scrutinised from a very common sense perspective, it saddens and infuriates that we cannot use our God-given faculties to balance the greater good over the nominal evil, if it really be that evil.

Keep religion out of public services

The more reason why the clamour to ban religion in public services and places should prevail, if you choose to use a public hospital, the medical advice should and must take precedence over religious belief, else go to church and let the priest minister through prayer.

It is things like these where the family should be filled with joy, that the wretched hands of fate and sorrow might lead people to curse God when it has been no fault of God but that of men in religious leadership teaching for doctrines the traditions of men to keep others in bondage to a faith that engenders death rather than the preservation of life.

I am so sorry for the Gough family; the church, no matter how benevolent cannot replace the love of a mother or suckle the children to maturity, the man alone with his sorrow, must contemplate the possibility that God’s will would have been so radically different from church doctrine and seek where the preservation of life as a service to humanity is the true calling of religion.