by truthseeker 8 Replies latest jw friends
Have you ever visited a JW in hospital where the sign "I accept no blood products" is fastened to the wall, only
to learn that the JW is fine with having blood fractions from someone else's blood.
I hate the Society for doing this to people. They'll even tell them that blood fractions are a conscience matter
but you should make sure that no one is stumbled if you choose to have them.
I'm not a whizz at math, but I do know that all fractions make a whole.
The interesting thing is that nobody really takes whole blood transfusions these days. I have not seen a transfusion of whole blood in many years, in this country. So, the witnesses are not so different, are they? It is true that they still ban packed red blood cells which make up the bulk of transfusions today. On the other hand, they accept the hemoglobin after it is released from the red blood cell in products such as Hemapure. The problem with this is it comes from cow's blood. I think I would stick to human blood.
I would not want a blood transfusion unless I really needed it, as there are still transfusion reactions. The best choice is to store your own blood if you are having elective surgery. In a crisis situation, packed red blood cells are what is needed to carry the oxygen. In this case, you would need to draw from the blood banks.
Also witnesses can have their own blood reinfused after surgery. It is stored in a plastic drain and then drained into an IV bag in a closed system. But it is a few hours after surgery that it is actually reinfused. It is no different than getting a blood transfusion.
Yes, it is a double standard and was actually the tipping point for me to see the insanity of their changing rules and regulations.
The disgusting thing about this blood issue is that many JWs lost their lives because no blood or its components could be transfused according to early Watchtower rules. One can not dismiss the enormity of error by saying that these JWs at least remained faithful to Jehovah. Lives were lost because of the decision of a group of old men at Bethel who later changed their minds and said it was "a matter of conscience."
They would do well to read some of their own approved articles about "blood guilt" and "community responsibility."
They couldn't be any more disgusting with the way they treat their members on the issue, if what is allowed today was allowed in the past many dubs would have been alive now. I wonder what their relatives think as they see the blood ban getting ever more lax.
Up to recently they had a ban on self transfusion, did they not?
For my jaw surgery I was told I would have to give a bag of blood so that they can give me back my own blood if they need it. I told my JW mom this (back when we were speaking) and she didn't like it. uugghh... Ah well, it's not her decision.
> Up to recently they had a ban on self transfusion, did they not?
I'm pretty sure they still do. I'd like to see in writing where it's no longer banned.
onlyto learn that the JW is fine with having blood fractions from someone else's blood.
On top of that they will not donate blood, but they will benefit from a worldly persons donation.
| Posted by: quark23 | Report post | |
 | ||
| Is it just me or is this a witch hunt vs science? Wow. That is all I can say. I read an article detailing the benefits of a beneficial surgical procedure. It mentioned a religious organization that would benefit from it. Guess what happened? The posts are irrelevent to the article on the Hemobag. Instead they attack a group of religionists. Is it just me, ( I doubt it) or are we seeing the problem that affected so many during the Dark Ages? Here we have an article highlighting how transfusions of blood have had a weakness, a medical prodcedure will enable a greater chance of success during surgery, and the people who post comments to the article rant about cults instead of acknowledging the articles focus on procedures intended to save lives, regardless of religious beliefs. Should not the treatment we receive, whether from a proud medical school or a lowly village in a remote location of the world, be subject to the principles the patient holds dear? Was not Hippocrates himself seeking to set a standard of practice to enable a patient to have the best care possible? If a person disagrees with a procedure, that is their right. If you choose not to take a drug manufactured by a certain pharmacutical company, that is your choice. If you wish to undertake a high risk procedure that will risk your life, that is also your perogative. Should someone try to force you, they should face the penalties of law that also govern the abuse of any power. If a patient cannot speak for themselves, it falls to the closest family member to try their best to honor their wishes. Wars have been fought over less, and the greatest advances in civilisation have been to protect the rights of the lowliest citizen. It saddens me that in a time in which we feel enlightened, we still encounter the rabid attacks of uneducated, imbalanced, and irrational viewpoints of intolerants. Thank you for relating a procedure that will benefit all and highlighting those that will benefit most. I am sorry to see that the responses are from uneducated persons that seek to undermine the good because of a hatred for people they cannot tolerate. | ||
From here: Doctors take recycling to heart
Salem Statesman Journal, OR - Mar 9, 2007
"Our position on blood is basically non-negotiable," said Bradley Dean, a minister and member of the hospital liaison committee for Jehovah's Witnesses. ...
The Witnesses accept both cell salvage and hemodilution. The following quotes are from the November 2006 Kingdom Ministry.
"Cell Salvage-Reduces blood loss. Blood is recovered during surgery from a wound or body cavity. It is washed or filtered and then, perhaps in a continuous process, returned to the patient." Note the words-"perhaps in a continuous process." It is often not completed until hours after the surgery. It also is hung up in a bag just like all other transfusions, after collecting during the surgery. If you saw the procedure, you could tell it was no different than receiving your own blood back after surgery. The only difference would be possibly in the amount of time it was outside the body, but we are not talking about minutes. There is a window of six hours to reinfuse the blood.
"Hemodilution-Reduces blood loss. During surgery, blood is diverted to bags and replaced with a nonblood volume expander. Thus, the blood remaining in the patient during surgery is diluted, containing fewer red blood cells. During or after the surgery, the diverted blood is returned to the patient." Once again, there is a six hour window to reinfuse the blood and it is hung in a bag as any other blood transfusion would be.
Witnesses may accept either of these procedures. However, they may not donate their own blood days ahead of surgery. The only difference is in the amount of time the blood is out of your body.
Explain to me what the difference is between these "acceptable " procedures and just removing the blood earlier? I do not see an ethical difference.
