Wow! Fleur! Good Catch!
Well, the media is not finished with this story YET!
A JW apologist is to be interviewed on the BBC news today. I wonder what words of 'comfort' and 'wisdom' he can come out with....or not!
TRAGEDY ; YOUNG JW MOTHER DIES AFTER GIVING BIRTH
by stay young and beautiful 58 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
vitty
skeeter1
What an excellent article.
Jehovahs witnesses do not abstain from blood.............This is going to be my mantra. Im going to talk to my family about this case and give them this link
-
Mary
At the central office for Jehovah’s Witnesses in London, Paul Gillies, its spokesman, said: “If someone did [have a blood transfusion] they would be saying they don’t really believe in one of the central tenets of the faith.
Typical arrogance from anyone high up in the Organization. Notice that Paul Gillies specifically said that accepting a transfusion is evidence you don't believe "in one of the central tenets of the faith", not the bible itself.
“The biblical instruction is coupled with adultery and sexual immorality,” he said, referring to verses in Acts xv. “It says to abstain from adultery, to abstain from blood, to abstain from immorality,” he said. “Jehovah’s Witnesses might be forgiven for accepting one if they were genuine in their repentance, in the same way as if someone says, ‘I have committed adultery, I’m very sorry’.” Though such injunctions date from an age before blood transfusions, and refer to the consumption of blood, Mr Gillies said: “If someone said, ‘Don’t drink alcohol’ and I injected it into my arms instead, that would just be a way round the law’.”
But what if that alcohol was going to save your life? Let's say you're an alcoholic and aren't supposed to have any alcohol whatsoever. You're out in the desert somewhere, wounded. The only thing available that might stop any infection from setting in is alcohol in some form. How much sense would it be to not allow someone to pour a bit of the alcohol onto the wound in order to prevent infection and save your life? Would it make any sense to say "My doctor told me I couldn't have any alcohol or it might kill me" as a reason to refuse treatment? Of course not, and only the truly braindead would take it so literally.
The Society's ban on blood transfusions is no different and makes no damn sense whatsoever. Like someone else mentioned on another thread, if a man is starving to death, you can give him blood transfusions till the cows come home-----it's not going to save his life. Or if a man is in an accident and bleeding internally, no amount of blood given to him orally is going to save his life. They are two, completely different matters.
He added that, although he did not know the details of Mrs Gough’s case, “it is not an exact science that if you take blood you are going to live”.
Isn't it amazing how this asswipe, who doesn't "know the details of Mrs. Gough's case" and has absolutely no medical background, can confidently assert that a blood transfusion probably wouldn't have saved her life anyway? Gosh, why do we need doctors in the world when there are such brainiac people like Brother Paul Gillies around???
Christine Harris, a friend of the family, said: “The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn’t have saved Emma.”
Another bullshit statement from yet another loyal Dub. Neither Christine Harris nor the deceased's family are doctors yet it true blind-loyal fashion, they're trying to claim that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved her life. This of course, goes directly against what the doctors, who did have "all the details" and who were there, said.
I wonder how many more Witnesses are going to have to die before Crooklyn gets their heads out of their asses, wake up and change this discusting doctrine. What would be poetic justice, is for one of the Governing Body members to be hemorraging internally and die from refusing a blood transfusion. That's called Karma coming home to get you.
-
tijkmo
“The biblical instruction is coupled with adultery and sexual immorality,” he said, referring to verses in Acts xv. “It says to abstain from adultery, to abstain from blood, to abstain from immorality,”
yeah it is interesting that the jw stance on this is complete abstinence from adultery and immorality
but only relative abstinence from blood
-
horrible life
Like someone else mentioned on another thread, if a man is starving to death, you can give him blood transfusions till the cows come home-----it's not going to save his life. Or if a man is in an accident and bleeding internally, no amount of blood given to him orally is going to save his life. They are two, completely different matters.
AWESOME STATEMENT!
Christine Harris, a friend of the family, said: “The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn’t have saved Emma.”
Another bullshit statement from yet another loyal Dub. Neither Christine Harris nor the deceased's family are doctors yet it true blind-loyal fashion, they're trying to claim that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved her life. This of course, goes directly against what the doctors, who did have "all the details" and who were there, said.
I think Christine Harris, is trying to downplay the damage this has caused to Jehovah's name. Kinda reminds me of the pedophiles, and their policies. Don't tell, don't want to bring reproach to Jah's name.
They will probably say this to the "world", but inside their kingdom halls, and in 5 years in an Awake magazine, they will say how wonderful it was, that Emma held true to Jehovah. So, so sad. I hope your babies have a blessed life. Yours, Emma, was taken from you by men in New York, unfairly.
-
mcsemike
To Aleman: First, I suggest that you go back on your medication.
Secondly, what right does this mother have to deprive those children of a mother's love and support? And what is the father going to do? If something happens to him, who watches the children? Welfare??
People don't have the right to impose their views on children or society without good cause. This is not good cause, it is a CULT.
Besides, why didn't the mother take one of the many newly approved "blood components"? What new change will the WT come out with next year? Maybe they will approve of taking the very thing she refused and could be alive to see the change. What irony.
WT, you will burn in Hell forever.
-
Gill
Sometimes mike, especially in childbirth there is no time to piddle around with fractions: it's O - blood or six foot under! There is literally only minutes to react. If she wasn't already on a blood drip and the bleeding could not be stopped IMMEADIATELY it is no use messing about with a bit of this or that.
Very sad in the end. What else can anyone say!?
-
justhuman
Oh my God, another victim in the Altar of Watchtower...what a loving God they worship...a God that DEMANDS BLOOD...and LIFES...for sure that is not the God that I believe, and it was appeared to us through Jesus our Lord and Saviour
SHAME ON YOU BLOODY MURDERERS AT BROOKLYN, YOU FOLLOW THE WORKS OF YOUR FATHER, SATAN WHO WAS A MANSLAUGHTERER FROM THE BEGINING
-
M.J.
"Besides, why didn't the mother take one of the many newly approved "blood components"?"
Yeah, the oxygen carrying type are not approved for use except in South Africa. http://www.redcross.org/news/bm/intl/010419sub.html
Only in very special cases can it be used elsewhere, depending on the country. Even then, the stuff is not just sitting on some shelf at the local hospital.