# Refusing Medical Treatment : Religious Freedom or Negligent Homicide? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089 "2000-03-24T21:13:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2000, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/121 "2000-05-06T00:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > It makes my skin crawl every time I hear the terms “interpret” or “interpret literally” concerning anything quoted from the Bible. Case in point: > > > [@](#): > > > > You are refusing transfusions on the basis of faith in the interpretation of a single line of scripture by your church leaders. An interpretation, I feel compelled to point out, that is refuted by the rest of the world. > > Sorry, I won’t buy it, no matter _how_ high the vote (“the rest of the world”) is stacked against me. I don’t accept “Vox populi, vox dei.” And on the subject of “interpreting literally” (which I take as a cop-out synonym for “taking seriously”), consider the 6th Commandment (murder), the 8th Commandment (theft), and the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness). Hey, obviously people like Caryl Chessman, Willie Sutton, and Joe McCarthy didn’t “interpret those literally.” > So if you refuse to accept the Witnesses’ “interpretation” of Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, and the 15th chapter of Acts as “literal” (‘Transfusion is a modern, sophisticated medical procedure and the Bible is the product of ignorance or an undecipherable code’), keep it in mind the next time you decide to “interpret” a statute against reckless driving, tax evasion or forcible rape; I doubt that the judge will listen to your assertion that you didn’t “interpret” the law that way. > Or perhaps you believe that _Homo sapiens_ alone has the ability to communicate in simple, articulate terms and the notion that there is an Almighty God who can do so (better!) is infra dig to you. > \*\* Genesis 9:4 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” Leviticus 17:10 “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” Leviticus 17:10 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Acts 15:20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:29 “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Miriam-Webster: Main Entry: in·ter·pret Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter Date: 14th century transitive senses 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms 2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE 3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction \ intransitive senses : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages synonym see EXPLAIN - in·ter·pret·abil·i·ty /-"t&r-pr&-t&-'bi-l&-tE, -p&-t&-/ noun - in·ter·pret·able /-'t&r-pr&-t&-b&l, -p&-t&-/ adjective Your skin _should_ crawl, every time your sect allows a child to die based on its interpretation of those passages above. And **obviously** we are not dealing with a deity who can communicate clearly or there wouldn’t **be** so many people sincerely using the Bible to justify hate, repugnant crimes, and unbelievable stupidity. Plenty of folks use it to guide themselves in this life without ever falling prey to those things. Sadly enough, your sect is not among them. I do not argue that all interpretations are valid. I merely argue that yours is ridiculous. Throwing a child’s life away on the basis of your sect’s **human** and **fallible interpretation** of those few lines is unacceptableto every reasoning person in this world, and if God exists, I expect him as well. ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2000, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/122 "2000-05-06T03:47:07Z")
And once again, my question is ignored. Too bad, too, since I went out of my way to plug all the holes that dougie complained about. Or is there something else that you “forgot” to mention, doug? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2000, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/123 "2000-05-06T21:07:22Z")
> [@](#): > > And obviously we are not dealing with a deity who can communicate clearly or there wouldn’t be so many people sincerely using the Bible to justify hate, repugnant crimes, and unbelievable stupidity. You call me ‘unbelieveably stupid’ at your own risk, Buddy. This also reminds me of “religion is the opiate of the masses,” by Karl Marx. (I consider Chico more articulate. :D) I think I have made this clear–or not! In any case, parents properly have the duty to make decisions for their children–you don’t; Heck, I would never assign a dentist to remove a gall bladder and I would not assign the duty of deciding what medical procedure to allow for my child, to a stranger (let alone a judge or a politician; and even health-care professionals arouse some suspicion in me). Okay, so you don’t accept the Bible as God’s word. That’s no skin off my nose: You have no religious or temporal authority over me. This is a right which hinges on the understanding of the person(s) involved, not a third party. IT’S JUST NOT YOUR BAILIWICK!! ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2000, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/124 "2000-05-06T22:44:24Z")
Oh boy, here we go again. :rolleyes: * * * ## In any case, parents properly have the duty to make decisions for their children–you don’t ## So do you think we should legalize child abuse? After all, if parents decide that beating the crap out of their kids is the right thing to do, who are we to judge, right? ## Okay, so you don’t accept the Bible as God’s word. That’s no skin off my nose It’s not that we don’t accept the Bible as God’s word, it’s just that we realize the difference between “eating” blood and getting a transfusion. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2000, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/125 "2000-05-06T23:23:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > It makes my skin crawl every time I hear the terms “interpret” or “interpret literally” concerning anything quoted from the Bible.\*\* It makes my skin crawl every time someone uses medical advice that is 2000 to 3000 years old. ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2000, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/126 "2000-05-06T23:29:01Z")
dougie\_monty: > [@](#): > > You call me ‘unbelieveably stupid’ at your own risk, Buddy. I believe Ptahlis said the Bible is used by some people to justify hate, repugnant crimes, and unbelievable stupidity. I don’t see anything in his statement to imply that he was referring to _you_ as being “unbelievably stupid”, any more than he was saying you’re guilty of hate or repugnant crimes. > [@](#): > > I would never assign a dentist to remove a gall bladder and I would not assign the duty of deciding what medical procedure to allow for my child, to a stranger (let alone a judge or a politician; and even health-care professionals arouse some suspicion in me). Jehovah’s Witnesses, as a rule, have little knowledge of medicine. They are, in fact, statistically less likely to be educated than the general public. Why is a parent with no medical background more competent to make medical decisions for a child than a doctor? I’d rather have my dentist take out my gallbladder. Your distrust of health-care professionals is typical; the Watchtower Society has preached since its inception that medicine is bad, and evil, and worldly. At various times, the Watchtower has forbidden JW’s to receive immunizations, to receive an organ transplant, or to use aluminum cookware. > [@](#): > > This is a right which hinges on the understanding of the person(s) involved, not a third party. IT’S JUST NOT YOUR BAILIWICK!! If my neighbor dips his child in a tub full of scalding water to punish him for wetting his pants, that is my business. If my neighbor is driving drunk, hits a tree, and kills her son who is sitting in the back seat, that is my business. If my elderly patient’s husband throws her across the room and beats the crap out of her, that is my business. If my young adult, mentally retarded patient is being neglected and starved by his caregivers, that is my business. Shoot, if you beat your own _dog_ it is my business. Children are not property. Society must defend those who are unable to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2000, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/127 "2000-05-07T02:27:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > You have no religious or temporal authority over me. This is a right which hinges on the understanding of the person(s) involved, not a third party. IT’S JUST NOT YOUR BAILIWICK!! > \*\* Although Holly said it most eloquently, it sure is my business. I _personally_ may have no authority over you, but the laws of this society do, thankfully. Personally, I’m glad there is no passage in the Bible saying anything like “The breath of life is sacred, and issueth from the mouth, therefore let none but man and wife, one life joined by God press lips.” Had that been in there, JW’s all over the place would be pulling rescue workers off of children to prevent CPR. For clarity’s sake, I did not call **you** unbelievably stupid, but the belief that those passages are justification for allowing children to die. I also feel I should point out that the JW’s haven’t cornered the market on stupid beliefs either. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2000, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/128 "2000-05-07T02:36:03Z")
d\_m said: > [@](#): > > In any case, parents properly have the duty to make decisions for their children–you don’t **Wrong** As one person already mentioned, in cases of child abuse, the parent does _not_ have the sole duty to make decisions – because the child is a _person_ and, as a society, we have determined that there should be times when that person’s rights supercede your parental rights. Ya know what, dougie? If you’re going to **kill** your child, that is one time I think society should step in. I don’t give a shit if you’re doing it because of your religious beliefs or because the next-door-neighbor’s dog told you to do it. The fact of the matter is that you should not be allowed to murder your child. ---
**Author:** ![evilbeth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/evilbeth/32/2268_2.png) [@evilbeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilbeth)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2000, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/129 "2000-05-08T08:39:03Z")
Well, according to the Watchtower website, Jehovas Witnesses believe that abortion is wrong. So, the deliberate death of an unborn child is wrong but the deliberate death of a “born” child is acceptable? I don’t understand this. Is it because of the whole active/passive deliberate death thing? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2000, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/130 "2000-05-10T22:25:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, according to the Watchtower website, Jehovas Witnesses believe that abortion is wrong. So, the deliberate death of an unborn child is wrong but the deliberate death of a “born” child is acceptable? I don’t understand this. Is it because of the whole active/passive deliberate death thing? Once again, you assume some fact not in evidence. (According to both Dear Abby and Benny Hill, among others, when you “assume” something you make an “ass” of “u” and “me.”) You assume, specifically, that 1) if someone gets a transfusion he/she will live, and 2) if the person _doesn’t_ get a transfusion he/she will die! Golly, when and where did you earn your medical degree and license? I didn’t like that ‘medical knowledge two to three thousand years old,’ either. To me this all boils down to whether you accept the Bible or not–near as I can figure you don’t. If this had been stated in the OP that might have made a difference. As for abortion, I consider it the Pound of Cure. This is perhaps worth another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/131 "2000-05-10T23:38:35Z")
In many cases, you can predict with near certainty that refusing a transfusion will result in death (or significant physiological damage) and getting a transfusion will almost certainly result in a life saved. According to JW doctrine, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not blood transfusions are helpful. If every illness from the common cold to E. boli to metastatic cancer could be immediately cured by a simple blood transfusion, it would not matter: the Bible says it (according to the Watchtower interpretation); therefore it is better to die than to accept blood. The whole rigaramole about transfusions being so terribly dangerous and inevitably fatal is just rhetoric spewed out by the Watchtower Society to “prove” to its adherents that blood transfusions are “wrong”. The Watchtower and Awake! magazines report with eery glee quotes (often out of context) from doctors who seem to agree with their position, and case studies of patients who died as the result of transfusion or in spite of transfusion, or who survived “miraculously” without transfusion. Those who died _because they refused transfusion_ are held up as heroes, as martyrs, if they are mentioned at all. Nevertheless, the real issue is whether or not parents have the absolute right to control the lives (and/or deaths) of their children based on religious grounds. I say no. Do what you wish with your own life; if you choose to shoot yourself in the head, I believe that is your right; your body is yours. But children are _not property_. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/132 "2000-05-11T00:30:40Z")
> [@](#): > > The Watchtower and Awake! magazines report with eery glee quotes (often out of context) from doctors who seem to agree with their position, and case studies of patients who died as the result of transfusion or in spite of transfusion, or who survived “miraculously” without transfusion. Those who died because they refused transfusion are held up as heroes, as martyrs, if they are mentioned at all. Care to give documentation (including your interpretation of the “context”?) ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/133 "2000-05-11T00:44:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* I didn’t like that ‘medical knowledge two to three thousand years old,’ either.\*\* Sorry, but I’m not taking it back. Guys, it’s obvious that **dougie** ’s tactic is to cite the few times a transfusion failed or wasn’t needed and ignore the millions of times a transfusion did exactly as it was supposed to do: Save the person’s life. As for getting AIDS from a transfusion, the [American Association of Blood Banks](http://www.aabb.org/docs/facts.html#ttd) says: > [@](#): > > **sophisticated tests have reduced the risk of getting HIV from a single blood transfusion to about 1 in 676,000.** It’s probably easier to get hit by lightning than to get HIV from a blood transfusion. > [@](#): > > **To me this all boils down to whether you accept the Bible or not–near as I can figure you don’t.** I don’t accept the Bible is the Word of God, no. I think it was written by people under their own inspiration, by people who had only the vaguest clues about how the world really works. I’m curious. Do you follow the Bible’s dietary restrictions? Those restrictions are more clearly stated than an alleged commandment not to accept transfused blood. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/134 "2000-05-11T01:28:23Z")
d\_m said: > [@](#): > > You assume, specifically, that 1) if someone gets a transfusion he/she will live, and 2) if the person doesn’t get a transfusion he/she will die! No, actually nobody is assuming that. In fact, the only **ass** umptions around here are coming from you – usually after we’ve gone over it a couple hundred times. It has been shown over the years that people who need transfusions are much more likely to survive if they get them than if they don’t. Thus, if you refuse to allow your child to have one even if s/he needs one, you are subjecting your child to an unnacceptable risk and committing child abuse – possibly murder. Get it? Or are you going to ignore this post like so many others and just continue to write the same message over and over again? ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/135 "2000-05-11T04:15:12Z")
Just a quick plug for what I (personally) consider the most important question in the thread. Just to be sure dougie knows I’m still watching, and waiting, for an answer. Sure would be nice to get one. So do I kill all those brown eyed kids? ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/136 "2000-05-11T04:50:01Z")
* * * ## To me this all boils down to whether you accept the Bible or not–near as I can figure you don’t. FYI, millions of people who fully accept the Bible have gotten blood transfusions because they, unlike you, understand that “eating” blood and having blood injected into your system to replace lost blood are two completely different things. ---
**Author:** ![evilbeth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/evilbeth/32/2268_2.png) [@evilbeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilbeth)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2000, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/137 "2000-05-11T09:09:14Z")
I am not assuming anything. Let me put it another way. If a pregnant woman decides to repeatedly punch herself in the stomach and drink copious amounts of castor oil, why is this worse than refusing a baby a transfusion? I am not assuming that the pregnant woman will be successful in aborting the fetus but it has a good likelihood of happening. I am not assuming that the lack of transfusion will kill the baby but it has a good likelihood of happening. Now both instances are on equal footing. Now can you tell me the difference without trying to attack my question? I seriously want to know. I ask again, is it because of the active/passive role of the parent? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2000, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/138 "2000-05-13T00:48:27Z")
> [@](#): > > **If a pregnant woman decides to repeatedly punch herself in the stomach and drink copious amounts of castor oil, why is this worse than refusing a baby a transfusion?** Was this question directed at **dougie-monty**? If it was directed to us all, I think denying a child a life-saving blood transfusion is the more heinous act. Why? In that case, the child in question _has already been born_. It’s here, it’s alive, but will do so only if the transfusion is done. The fetus is a _potential_ human being and ending a pregnancy is not committing murder, IMO. Whether the parent actively or passively causes the death of a child is irrelevant. In either case, the parent is guilty of child abuse. Whether homicide or manslaughter, I leave for a court to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2000, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/139 "2000-05-13T18:22:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Care to give documentation (including your interpretation of the “context”?) I began a search to provide such documentation to you, but I was overwhelmed with the volume of such. Please refer to any _Awake!_ magazine, to the “news” blurbs at the back two pages, for evidence. Every single _Awake!_ magazine that I can find has at least one blurb relating to the dangers of transfusion. Taking a quote out of “context” means (in my interpretation) that the speaker’s actual words are used, but portrayed in such a way that the speaker’s meaning is distorted. The Watchtower is famous for this tactic. Again, refer to _any_ Watchtower publication for examples. Interestingly, though the Watchtower claims the prohibition against blood is Biblical, the vast majority of Watchtower anti-blood propaganda deals with the medical dangers of transfusion (which are grossly exaggerated). Also interestingly, the Watchtower began to permit (in 1977) blood components for hemophiliacs (Factor VIII). If you suffer acute blood loss and require a transfusion to survive, you run the risk of being exposed to pathogens from a few blood donors. This is not allowed by the Watchtower: if you suffer acute blood loss, you must die. On the other hand, if you are a hemophiliac, you require several doses of Factor VIII yearly in order to survive. Each dose is obtained by pooling the blood of thousands of donors; therefore the hemophiliac runs a risk of contracting a disease from a transfusion _thousands of times_ greater than the patient experiencing acute blood loss _each time_ the hemophiliac receives a dose of Factor VIII. This is allowed (since 1977) by the Watchtower Society. Why does the Watchtower pretend their stance against transfusion is scientific and medically sound? If this was so, JW hemophiliacs would be forced to bleed to death because Factor VIII would be prohibited. As it stands, Factor VIII is acceptable, as is albumin, as are various other blood components. The only legitimate reason the Watchtower has to prohibit transfusion is its interpretation of scripture, though of course the Watchtower violates this interpretation by permitting several blood components to be used. Fine with me, if you are an adult. If you want to drink the special Kool-Aid, that is fine with me, if you are an adult. If you intend to force your minor child to drink the Kool-Aid, I feel justified in preventing you from doing so. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089/140 "2000-05-14T13:35:42Z")
Holly said: > [@](#): > > Interestingly, though the Watchtower claims the prohibition against blood is Biblical, the vast majority of Watchtower anti-blood propaganda deals with the medical dangers of transfusion (which are grossly exaggerated). Sounds a lot like creationists. They claim they are right based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, but then many of them turn around and try to claim scientific evidence. > [@](#): > > Why does the Watchtower pretend their stance against transfusion is scientific and medically sound? I would say, for the same reason as the aforementioned creationists do the same thing. I guess literal believers are in shorter supply today, so they have to try to back it up with pretend science to make them feel better about accepting it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/refusing-medical-treatment-religious-freedom-or-negligent-homicide/18089.md?page=8)