This was sent to me by a JW, trying to convince me how correct they are to refuse blood. It's one of those, "see I told you we were wright" things. Enjoy.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/health/are-transfusions-the-holy-grail-dont-take-it-as-read/2007/06/02/1180809381382.html
Study shows Jehovah's Witnesses heart surgery patients do better than patie
by whereami 11 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
whereami
-
Junction-Guy
I would send a reply back saying "studies also show that when you are in a car wreck and puncture an artery, you better darn well take a blood transfusion or you will be pushing up daisies."
-
Gill
I agree with you Junction_Guy! Also, best practice in medicine these days is to use blood only when necessary.
Sometimes BLOOD IS THE ONLY MEDICINE! This is something that JWs like to push to the back of their minds and understandably so.
-
WTWizard
This shows that indiscriminate use of blood can be stupid, wasteful, and hazardous. There is always a chance of complications, and you can get AIDS or other infections from taking blood. Besides, using blood when not really of best use can waste it. Hence, the first line is to prevent the situation where a blood transfusion would be necessary in the first place.
However, if one has passed this point or is in an emergency situation, there really isn't any choice. You have the options of taking the blood or dying. In those cases, the risks inherent of blood do not matter. It is also not wasteful in those situations--after all, it's precisely for those cases that blood is there for. And there is the danger of the patient surviving only to have brain damage from waiting too long.
When all the facts are weighed, if the cost of taking the blood is less than the benefits, then the blood should be used in that case and at that point. If the cost exceeds the benefit, then save the blood. However, it is not for some old fogeys in Brooklyn to make that decision--it's up to the doctor and the patient.
-
brinjen
I agree. For every study that go in favour of 'no blood' there are numerous more than go against it. I would not accept a transfusion if its not necessary, however if I'm in danger of dying I won't be refusing.
-
Shawn10538
This was a study of the ones that didn't die right?
-
Gill
Shawn - i believe that after that notorious martyrs wall magazine in the 1980's with all the young people who have died from lack of blood transfusion, the WT has not mentioned how many members it has lost to this policy ever.
-
Hellrider
Yes, I have read about this too. It appears that heart surgery-patients who receives a blood transfusion have a higher mortality rate than those that don`t. Of course, the jws are gonna use this study for all its worth, blowing it all out of proportions, "see, we told you so, blood is baaaad", and then they won`t mention all the cases in which people will actually DIE without a transfusion (severe bloodloss as a result of accidents, major surgery, etc). The logical conclusion to this should of course be that heart-surgery-patients should not receive blood transfusions unless they really need one. That`s all. It`s no biggie, and nothing to get hyped about. If they bring up this argument, just show them the article from that 80s Watchtower, with the faces of all the children who did NOT have heart surgery, but they still f##king died. And if they HAD received blood transfusions, they would still have been around today. Murderous cult.
-
jwfacts
There is no argument that blood is not always the best alternative. However other research shows that sometimes it is. There was another post recently that showed that blood increases the chance of survival. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/135674/1.ashx
There are times when a person will without question die without blood, and this is when the Watchtower Society has manslaugther on its hands. I received an email from a Witness whose son bled to death in a car accident after refusing a blood transfusion available in an ambulance.
I have also out up a new article on blood that you may find helpful at
-
Gill
JWfacts - Thanks for that information. I've saved it.
What I believe is that the Watchtower Society saying that it is not responsible for the deaths of many JWs who refused blood in the past because of their doctrine and policy, is much like a Murderer saying that he is not accountable for murders he committed 5, 10, 20 years ago because he is now 'changed'. The WT society MUST be held accountable for all of those that have died AND since they now allow virtually every fraction of blood that is available it is about time the legal establishment in every country they operate in began to hold them accountable.