RE: Jehovah�s Witnesses Lady Dies� After Rejecting Blood Transfusion
We have read with interest the above front-page headline and its article which was published on page 3 of your newspaper The Chronicle of June 22, 2015. In the article, the writer, Alfred Adams of Takoradi, reported that “Rebecca Dankwa and her mother, believed to be worshipping at the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church,” refused to accept blood transfusion “on the grounds that their religion forbids blood transfusions,” and she died as a result.
As representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Ghana, we write to point out the misinformation contained in that report. Our investigation into the matter has clearly established that the said Rebecca Dankwa was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since this person mentioned in the report was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we are at a loss as to why the name of Jehovah’s Witnesses should be linked to the story. We, therefore, request that you publish a retraction of the part of the story that mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Also, of interest is your editorial on that report which was entitled -“A-G must intervene in Jehovah’s Witnesses bunkum.” We request that you publish our comments on this.
We want to make it very clear that the editorial got the stand of Jehovah’s Witnesses on this issue completely wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not refuse all medical treatment for themselves and their children.
That is not the case at all. It is only a form of medical treatment—blood transfusion—that we object to, and rather ask for known alternative treatment.
If a person declines blood transfusion and also turns down any alternatives available, then the conclusion may well be reached that he is denying himself medical treatment. But this is not the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Ours is a choice of medical treatment and not a refusal of medical treatment. Does a patient not have the right to choose the form of treatment administered to him?
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusion for themselves and their children primarily for religious reasons. The Bible at Acts 15:28, 29 states: “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, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
The Bible’s clear command is “to keep abstaining… from blood.” We understand this to include not accepting blood transfusions. If a doctor tells a patient to abstain from penicillin, would it mean that introducing penicillin into his system orally is disallowed but that introducing it into his system intravenously is allowed? For this reason, we ask to be given non-blood alternative treatments, which are available in this country, are safer, and are cheaper in the long run.
Mr. Editor, please note that our stand is not “religious bigotry… being unfurled on innocent people,” as your editorial put it. When we and our children fall sick, we seek the best treatment available.
In this vein, please note what Dr. Charles Huggins, director of transfusion service at the large Massachusetts General Hospital, U.S.A., said as reported in The Boston Globe Magazine of February 4, 1990: “Blood has never been safer. But it must be considered unavoidably non-safe. It is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.”
A front-page article in the May 24, 1997 issue of the Weekly Spectator entitled – “Blood Bank Faces Shortage,” confirms this. In that article an official of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital Blood Bank pointed out the risk of acquiring the HIV virus from donated blood.
Would it, therefore, be wrong for a parent, Jehovah’s Witness or not, who is seeking the best treatment for himself or his child, to refuse blood transfusion and ask for alternative treatment?
Section 79 (b) of the Criminal Code 1960 (Act 29) says: “A parent is under a duty to give access to the necessaries of health and life to his child actually under his control not being of such age and capacity as to be able to obtain these necessaries.”
Therefore, Witness parents who opt for safer alternative treatment for their children and are not willing to endanger the children’s health and life by accepting blood transfusion for them are actually doing what the law requires of them.
In this country evidence is piling up that it is possible to treat seriously ill patients, both adults and children, without blood. Most doctors and hospital administrators are aware that Jehovah’s Witnesses have an excellent network that easily and quickly provides doctors with medical information they need in the handling of such very difficult cases. We provide free information from experts around the globe on bloodless treatment.
In conclusion, we must say that the reference the editorial made to the proviso in Article 28 of the 1992 Constitution that a child shall not be denied medical care on religious grounds is noteworthy.
However, this does not apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses but to some medical personnel who unfortunately refuse to give alternative treatment and only leave Witness patients to die because they exercise their right to choose the type of medical treatment they want.
Some patients have even been prevented from being transferred to other medical facilities where the personnel are ready to provide the alternative treatment. Sadly, some of such instances have resulted in the death of the patient and the cause of death has invariably been attributed to his refusal to accept a blood transfusion rather than to the real cause, his being denied the necessary alternative medical care.
Asking for alternative treatment is not the same as asking to be allowed to die without treatment. So we agree with you in “calling on the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and the Minister of Gender, Children and Social Protection to sit up and apply the laws of the land” to those who leave patients to die simply because they exercise their right to choose one form of treatment over another.
Thank you for correcting the wrong impression created.
<<Print>>