and offering to him blood of mankind according to God’s directions. Long ago God took care of saving the world of mankind by blood, and he does not need their so-called scientific use of blood. Their use of it in the name of medicine is not God’s will.

By Man’s Way or by God’s Way​—Which?

1. The breaking of God’s sacred law on the claim of saving life puts human life on what level?

NO ONE may be excused or justified for breaking God’s sacred law on the plea that he is saving human life or prolonging it. With the exception of some conscientious individual members the medical associations treat God’s law as a myth of the Bible or as no longer having force. They put the life of imperfect, condemned, dying men above the law of God and break it on the claim of trying to save a human life, not for eternity, but for the short uncertain period of the present lifetime. This has resulted in an epidemic of blood transfusions that they claim are lifesaving.

2. How have some medics recently violated the basic rights of a free human creature, and how do they try to protect themselves when doing this?

² Convinced in their own minds of their obligation to save human lives in this manner, they will go even so far as to force transfusions on dedicated Christians who conscientiously object to breaking God’s law in order to try to preserve their lives. They try to procure a show of legality for doing this, although it denies the patient not only his God-given right but also his national constitutional rights according to an established Bill of Rights in certain countries. To protect themselves because of this the medics appeal to judges and lawmaking bodies of the land to authorize them to override the freedom of religion with its right to worship the living and true God Jehovah according to the dictates of conscience. In this case, according to such medical views, religion is a menace to life and must be brushed aside to enact an atheistic violation of God’s law on the sanctity of blood.

3. (a) In acting that way, what is the idea of the medics? (b) Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a grant of life, what have medics no right to do to a conscientious person?

³ Save life in a manner contrary to the religious wishes of the patient and keep him from choosing to die! is the medical idea. But even the Supreme Court of the United States of America has handed down the decision that a person with free moral agency has the right to choose to die rather than take advantage of certain legal provisions for sparing or preserving his life, on what basis? If the person cannot accept the terms or conditions upon which his life will be spared or preserved.a So, then, if the highest court of the land has no right to force life upon a person on terms unacceptable to him, the medical profession has no right, legal or ethical, to force its unscriptural methods of saving life upon a patient who would rather die than violate his conscience by breaking God’s holy law.

4. How do medics claim that transfusion does not break God’s law against blood as food, but what is really the case?

⁴ However, as a further justification for their course, what do medics claim? This, that transfusion is not a feeding of blood to a patient and hence is not a violation of God’s law. But really this is unscientific reasoning. For the very reason that the transfused material is not taken directly into the mouth to go through the regular digestive processes of the body, the transfusion method becomes the quickest and most direct way of feeding the body on what is forbidden by God’s law stated to Noah and reaffirmed by the Christian Council of Jerusalem.

5. What is the medical argument about transfused blood as being, not food, but merely a vehicle, but how does this really work out?

⁵ In a further argument for transfusion, it is claimed that what is transfused is merely a vehicle to convey food directly to the human body, and that the body does not feed on the vehicle itself. We therefore ask the question: After the transfused vehicular blood has released its oxygen and food elements to the body tissues of the patient, is this vehicular blood extracted from the patient’s body and transfused back into the body of the blood donor? This would be quite embarrassing and impossible, especially where the blood donor or donors are not known or if the blood has been taken from a newly dead cadaver. So the transfused vehicular material is left in the patient’s body. What then? Well, in the course of the years during which the human body renews itself into a new body, this vehicular blood is used or consumed by the patient’s body, the same as any other transplant of an organ. In what way, then, does this outworking of things differ essentially from feeding on the transfused blood? The results are the same: the patient’s body does sustain itself by transfused stuff.