I won't sign the card or tick anything off, as I will file it in the circular when I arrive home or will send a copy to some appropriate ones. It's my not so humble opinion, that it isn't any of the society's business what I do to secure medical help, attention or anything else. They can stay the hell out. I have had several operations over my lifetime and have always insured that no hlc be advised of my religion or medical preferences on threat of sueing the hospital for having my patient rights violated. Seems to work as they have kept them at bay. In fact, decisions like these should only be made with a qualified medical doctor not a window washing elder who doesn't have a clue as to proper procedures for medical surgery, emergencies or anything else. My wife and I have both signed medical powers of attorney and made our wishes known, it quite frankly isn't any business of the Unfaithful and Indiscreet assholes.
New Aussie Blood card released last night= It will make you sick! Shocking!
by Witness 007 89 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
sooner7nc
leave sarcasm to the aussies and Scottish, Americans just don’t get it. And your internet threat is just stupid, why do people do internet threats? So ridiculous. You can shove your stupid tyre kicking comments up YOUR rear.
Threat? What threat? I'll have you know jeffery, that I never threaten retards. I feel that it lessens me somewhat.
-
jefferywhat
Gee thanks for the insight into the deeper sides of your personality there Sooner, no seriously, thank you.
-
Mary
Here's what the new blood cards should look like:
-
TD
Jeffrey,
Blood transfusions are a Victorian technology, actually even older , I think the early attempts were the 15 or 16 century, it wasn’t until the 30’s that they worked out that it could be separated, so my statement is true and accurate.
This strikes me as an unusual way to view things. From that perspective it would be just as true to state that brain surgery is an ancient Egyptian technology. These type of statements are true in a weak superficial sense, but of questionable accuracy since the concept itself is pretty much the only commonality between the ancient and modern procedures..
You said “The new generation of oxygen carrying blood substitutes primarily duplicates the function of red cells”. At this point there are no oxygen carrying blood substitutes that aren’t derived from bovine or human hemoglobin, I know there was some trials with Perfluorocarbon some years back but I don’t think it has been approved.
Yes. Polyheme by Northfield laboratories is a polymerized human hemoglobin (From donated blood) prepared by pyridoxylation. HemAssist by Baxter International is a cross-linked human hemoglobin. Optro by Somatogen is cross-linked recombinant human hemoglobin produced by genetically modified Escherichia coli. Hemopure by Biopure is a polymerized bovine hemoglobin. Since the year 2000 all hemoglobin based blood substitues are considered a matter of conscience for JW's and many of them (mistakenly) seem to think that these will completely replace allogenic transfusion in the near future.
You said “ Witness CHILDREN have died from injuries as mundane as a breaking a leg when they fell off a skateboard”. Plural? More than one? I doubt this but welcome proof of such a statement. It seems highly improbable. The rest of your points are true.
I only know of one case involving a skateboard, but the qualifier, "as mundane as" was meant to encompass all the commonn ways that children break bones including mishaps with bicycles, dirt bikes, horseback riding, falling off roofs, ladders, waterskiing etc. Would you like to take a guess at how quickly you can exsanguinate from a fracture of the femur Jeffrey? The blood pulsing out of a compound fracture literally shoots three feet in the air. That particular observation was based upon personal experience and conversations with other family members working as EMTs in a rural voluteer fire department 20 years ago. I honestly don't know of a way to offer proof this many years after the fact. Take it as a lie if you wish.
Nothing I've said on this thread is meant to imply that blood component therapy is something that one would want. I wouldn't want a transfusion (Of any kind) anymore than I would want brain surgery. Is does rankle though when statements are made to the effect that when it comes to the medical uses of blood, the majority of the medical community are wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses are basically right with absolutely nothing offered in the way of proof.
-
jefferywhat
TD,
Egyptians pulled the brain out through the nose and thought the brain was the very thing that killed you, this contrasts considerably with the procedure of blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were attempted for hundreds of years but were really successfully carried out unitl the victorian era and were 'mainstreamed" during world war 1, which I guess is slightl out of that era. But at all times the basic principles and ideas were accurate, they simply didnt understand that a) human and animal blood was not compatible and b) different human blood types.
My point being that whole blood transfusions are rare and quite risky and old technology.
Whole blood is not stored, so if you are a recipient of whole blood you are taking in blood that has not been screened and as I have said there is a very real risk of fatal disease associated with this option.
Further, medicine is pursuing alternatives because of the costs but also the risks associated with whole blood/packed red blood cells.
Also, I was not inferring that you were lying with your statement, however it was quite an emotive comment and mental picture. A compound fracture of the femur would be the most rare of compound fractures due to the sheer size of the bone. And just because its a compound fracture does not mean it would necessarily tear the major blood vessels of the leg and if it did, the person could be dead in a couple of minutes, particularly if the fracture ruptures the femoral artery, so a blood transfusion aint gunna save them. So i wasnt saying what you said was wrong, just incredibly rare and emotive.
You said "statements are made to the effect that when it comes to the medical uses of blood, the majority of the medical community are wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses are basically right with absolutely nothing offered in the way of proof."
I agree with you, however, I am sure I have not put forward any opinions without proof.
I have presented the local media opinion, the Governments opinion and my medically trained opinion and havent said that anyone in the medical community has it wrong.
This thread is entitled "New Aussie Blood card released last night= It will make you sick! Shock". I think this is a really ignorant comment, why will it make you sick? The majority of the community doesnt have an education of this type. JW or not, everyone should look at medical choices. The whole blood issue is an emotive one. When I moved from Australia to the UK I couldn't believe how much aggression there was in the field over the issue. But I found the people attacking the witness view of blood were quite ignorant thinking that blood is the "save all".
Its an option. -
Mary
jeffreywhat said: My point being that whole blood transfusions are rare and quite risky and old technology. Whole blood is not stored, so if you are a recipient of whole blood you are taking in blood that has not been screened and as I have said there is a very real risk of fatal disease associated with this option.
Yes but jeffrey, it's rare that anyone gets "whole blood" anymore during a transfusion. The blood is broken down into the various elements and the recipient usually gets packed blood, not the whole deal.
Yes there is a risk when you take a transfusion. There's also a risk that you can get shot if you're on holidays in Thailand as a professor found out yesterday. Does that mean that no one should ever take a risk in like, especially when there's an excellent chance that you could be saved?
I believe that as time goes on, science and medicine will find an alternative to using blood transfusion that will eliminate the risks presently associated with transfusions. However in the meantime, it is just plain common sense to use what's available. If the WTS is useful for anything, I believe that they have at least brought the issue of possible blood alternatives to the table and hopefully down the road something else can used. This, however, does not excuse their pitiful behaviour and stubborn attitude towards dropping the ban on blood for the R&F. Each year, Witnesses die needlessly due to this ridiculous doctrine and how the GB members sleep at night knowing this, is beyond me.
-
sooner7nc
There's no need for thanks, dearest jeffery. I do what I can to help my fellow man come to grips with their innermost feelings. Indeed, I offer my hand in thanks to you jeffery.
sooner7nc
-
TD
Jeffrey,
I agree with you that the transfusion of whole blood is 1940’s medicine. My objection was to the term "Victorian era." During the Victorian era no knowledge of blood types existed and before the discovery of CPD (Or more precisely, what it did to blood.) one of the most successful transfusion methods was to temporarily connect (Either by suture or pipette) an artery from the donor to a vein of the recipient. This was the method employed by Blundell and even by G. W. Crile as late as 1901. --Very much different than what is practiced today.
I agree that my observation about Witness children was emotive. The point was that JW’s have died in circumstances where you would not suppose that anyone would ever need to die. Even with the femoral artery intact, one can bleed to death from a fracture of the femor in 20 minutes. -Even less for a fracture of the pelvis. Plasma exapanders administered on the scene and in transit prevent vascular collapse as you know, but as long as the person continues to exsanguinate, hemoglobin mass is being lost. It doesn't take much medical training to realise that there are limits to how long this can be allowed to continue, especially if surgery will subsequently be required.
This is one of the problems I have with the opinions of Spiess being sensationalized by the media. I don't know of a single trauma center anywhere in the world that operates on a truly bloodless basis.
Here’s another similar example. (Also somewhat emotive.) From the years 1961 to about 1964 the JW parent organization forbade the use of gamma globulin through its literature. Regular injections of gamma globulin were and still are the standard treatment for neonatal immunological deficiency syndrome. A child with this condition can have a sniffle in the morning, a raging fever by noon and double pneumonia by evening. (In my case, a younger sibling had this condition.) Today, few Witnesses even think twice about accepting this component, (Most post-exposure vaccines contain it in one form or another.) but what were witness parents of such a child supposed to do during this period?
I think you will find that most xJW's and non-JW's who have strong opinions on this subject have an emotive experience somewhere in their past in addition to those opinions, which might explain some of the rancor on this thread. (i.e. They can take you to a cemetery and point you to a headstone.)
With the original title of this thread in mind, I’d like to try to answer one question you asked:
This thread is entitled "New Aussie Blood card released last night= It will make you sick! Shock". I think this is a really ignorant comment, why will it make you sick?
It makes me angry because I believe the ability to understand an act is a prerequisite to the ability to bear responsibility for that act.
As Scully explained already, the JW parent organization has taken the concept of an AMD, which is normally a good thing and perverted it into a tool to place the legal burden for assenting to a bewildering and irrational list of acceptable and non-acceptable preparations and procedures upon the individual JW who neither understands nor can explain exactly what he or she is agreeing to or why.
It’s not so much what the AMD states, as what it doesn’t state. When it comes to things deemed acceptable by the JW organization, I actually think the document does fairly well. In my opinion, the problem is that it incorporates a refusal of preparations and procedures deemed unacceptable by the JW organization on an a priori basis.
For example, I do not believe a JW (Or anyone else either) can explain:
Why a patient voluntarily connected to an inverted 500ml unit of 5% albumin solution is simply exercising their conscience and autonomy when it comes to medical treatment, while a patient voluntarily connected in an inverted 500ml unit of plasma has sinned against God, and should be expelled from the congregation; shunned by friends and family alike as one deserving of death.
Why autologous transfusion is forbidden while reinfusing blood that has been removed and taken to some other part of the facility for testing is acceptable.
Why the administration of autologous red cells is forbidden if done as a transfusion, but permissible if done as an epidural blood patch.
Why a bone marrow transplant is permissible when certain types of transfusion are wrong.
Why the administration of leukocytes is forbidden while the administration of leukocyte precursor cells is acceptable if done as stem cell autografting.
--No JW should be asked to sign a documet which creates these types of paradoxes.
-
jefferywhat
TD, Once again your educated and considered opinion is refreshing.
