The WTS was right!

freeme

Hi!

Remember the publications we've seen or seen scans of it, where the WTS argues against organ transplants, because when you receive a organ from a sinner you receive also parts of his personality?

Check this out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558271&in_page_id=1770

lol! watcha think?

freeme

I can think of scientific explanations to this. A donor organ contains some of the donor's blood, which contains hormones and some of the genetic matter. If the genes in the new organ program it to produce certain hormones and chemicals, those chemicals can act in the same manner in the recipient as they did in the original person. That might explain why a recipient could develop a similar medical condition, or even signs of a personality, that the original owner had.

And there are other substances in the donor organs. If the donor was taking medication, some of that medication is going to be in that organ (and the recipient will thus receive a dose of that medication). Food addictions can also be passed on this way through chemicals in the donor--if he was an alcoholic, there is a chance that some residual chemicals from this could make the recipient lean toward it. The same for cravings for food. This is why people should not get stupid organ transplants (that is, when they are not really needed).

Put in prospective, the greater risk is that the recipient will not take the new organ. The immune system usually recognizes it as foreign, and will try to destroy it. This means the recipient is going to need drugs to suppress the immune system. In turn, it makes the recipient more vulnerable to infection, and probably to cancer and other diseases where the immune system has the job of warding off. Plus the drugs have side effects, and must be taken for life. This effect is much more likely than the effect of taking on elements of the donor's personality and must be weighed against the benefits of the new organ.

No, the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger was not 100% right. They absolutely banned it between 1967 and 1980. One needs to objectively weigh the costs and risks with the benefits. That goes for a blood transfusion (I am also against stupid blood transfusions but not the ones needed to save life or to prevent probable disability). Each procedure carries potentially serious risks, but if the patient is going to die or be left severely disabled without it, then obviously the benefits are greater. At which point, there should be no guilt imposed on the patient for taking the blood or organ transplant.