WHY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY BLOOD POLICY IS WRONG:
****A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins..." illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die.
By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application.
Many of these are now considered a "conscience matter". Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these "fractions" take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes.
"Albumin" for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This "authorized" fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society.
(WRITTEN IN FEB 2006 AND TURNED IN WITH MY DISASSOCIATION LETTER)
Is BLOOD therapy really a sin?
by Fisherman 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Vinny
-
White Dove
Sin is a device used by religion to gain control over people and to make a lot of money off of them. I don't believe in sin since it is most likely a manmade idea. Sin is used to abuse people.
-
Enjoying freedom
You have to clarify with yourself why you are hesitant about refusing blood transfusions.
Is it (a) because of religions reasons or (b) because of the risks inherent with blood transfusions.
If it is (a) then I would suggest that you read carefully the well thought out and presented posts made previously about religious doctrine. Also remember that LIFE is precious.
If it is (b) then I refer you to the "National Blood Service - blood transfusion website (www.blood.co.uk) where it says in part:
" The biggest risk from receiving a blood transfusion is being given the wrong blood. ... Compaed to other everyday risks the likelihood of getting an infection from a blood transfusion is very low. All blood donors are unpaid volunteers. They are very carefully selected and tested to make sure that the blood they donate is as safe as possible. The risk of getting hepatitis from a blood transfusion is currently about 1 in 500,000 for hep B and 1 in 30 million for hep C. The chance of getting HIV or HTLB infection is about 1 in 5 million. Although the risk of getting variant CJD from a blood transfusion is probably low with a single blood transfusion, the risk of any infection will increase with additional blood transfusions. Each year, approximately 2 million units of blood are transfused in England and there have been just a handful of cases where patients are known to have become infected with vCJD from a blood transfusion. "
When making any decision about healthcare you are have to weigh up the risk factors, ie risk posed by the illness/injury, probability of death of permenant disability from that illness/injury, and the success rate of the proposed treatment, along with the risk of side effects of the treatment.
Is the treatment you are considering a proportionate response to the risks posed by the illness?
For example, if a patient with cardiomyopathy has a cold then there will probably not initially be any need for antibiotics. However, if that cold then settles on the patient's chest then the decision to take antiobiotics may be a wise one. However at this stage oral antibiotics may be sufficient - to propose a course of IM antibiotics would not be a proportionate response because (a) it is a more invasive procedure, and (b) the IM medication is very strong and can be painful when administered and can cause damage to the patient's veins. However, if that patient then develops a chest infection of sufficient severity that their heart is going into failure then it will most likely be prudent to start a course of IM antibiotics to treat the chest infection and reduce the heart failure - the fact that the treatment is invasive and can be painful is a risk that may be considered a necessary one.
So, I personally wouldn't consent to a blood transfusion if all I needed was a plaster, or if there were other alternatives that had a lower risk and fewer potential side effects.
But I would consent to a blood transfusion if there were no other alternative treatments with lower risk and my life/health was at risk.
It is all down to proportionality.
Enjoying freedom.
-
Fisherman
Vinny
Thanks for your great post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A lot of information to consider.