Awesome blog re blood issue

by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends

leavingwt

promoting a minority view with regard to the safety of non-blood treatments
They're going way beyond supporting a 'minority view'.
TD said the following, which accurately describes what they're doing.
They have presented it not only as a superior religious course, but a superior medical choice as well.
What is their track record? A long history of distributing Medical Quackery in the pages of their publications. Before asking their members to sign their Suicide Cards, perhaps they should encourage their members to review ALL of what they've printed on medical topics, in the past.
Here are a few examples. (More)
The Golden Age 1920 December 8 p.146
Milk is the greatest curative food known.
The Golden Age, Jan. 1, 1923 p.214
But the dog-rabies-vaccine imposition is the latest.... Rabies! When it has been shown conclusively that there is no such thing as rabies
The Golden Age, Jan. 16, 1924, p. 250
It has never been proven that a single disease is due to germs.
The Golden Age, April 22, 1925, p. 454
I HAVE named this new discovery, which I believe will be epochal in the history of the treatment of disease, and which I am exclusively announcing in THE GOLDEN AGE prior to its general publication elsewhere, The Electronic Radio Biola, which means life renewed by radio waves or electrons. The Biola automatically diagnoses and treats diseases by the use of the electronic vibrations. The diagnosis is 100 percent correct, rendering better service in this respect than the most experienced diagnostician.... THE principle of operation of the Biola is the collection... of the disease vibrations.... the fluid containing the same waves or vibrations enters the body, meets the disease waves and destroys them.... This is a great step forward, marking the Biola as the most valuable treatment apparatus obtainable today, and well worthy of notice in the columns of a magazine like THE GOLDEN AGE...
The Golden Age, Feb. 10, 1926, p.310
Air baths are good for preventing colds... What you do is strip naked mornings and evenings and then bob up and down for a while.
The Golden Age 1926 Apr 7 p.438}
Tonsillectomy is called a minor operation. If so, getting well is a double major. If any overzealous doctor condemns your tonsils go and commit suicide with a case-knife. It's cheaper and less painful.
The Golden Age, Nov. 28, 1928, p. 133
All human ailments have their start in the intestines.
Consolation 1931 December 1 p.12
A subscriber.... finds a drop or two of kerosene excellent for quickly cleaning sinks and bathtubs; it cuts the dirt immediately and leaves no odor; and when applied to cuts the cuts heal sooner. Try it.
The Golden Age, September 26, 1934, p. 807
The Journal of the A. M. A. is the vilest sheet that passes the United States mail.... Nothing new and useful in therapeutics escapes its unqualified condemnation. Its attacks are generally ad hominem. Its editorial columns are largely devoted to character assassination.... Its editor [Morris Fishbein] is of the type of Jew that crucified Jesus Christ.
The Golden Age 1936 September 23 p.828
Do not use X-Rays... they are destructive and sure to harm the grandchildren of those exposed to them.
skeeter1

Slimboyfat,
You need to read some cases on religious freedom of action. If the government has a compelling interest, the government can thwart the religious action. No, the government can not tell the followers WHAT to believe...but they can stop the church or its followers from WHAT it DOES.
Hence, Islamic terrorists can't claim "freedom of religion" for what they do...and neither can the Morman Fundamentalists who practice polygamy.
As for Scientology, yes it has been sued by followers and the followers won. Why? Coercion. Not coercion in the afterlife, but coercion in the present life. When coercion thwarts the person's ability to choose life, the State has a "compelling interest." Then, the government will indirectly intervene by allowing followers to sue.
The Watchtower has no option but to stop disfellowshipping/disassociation for accepting blood. If they get rid of it, then coercion goes away. If coercion goes away, then you have consent. Legally, I think they are in a corner with a ticking timebomb.
As for misinformation. There are always two sides of the story. There is always going to be something quoted wrong somewhere. What you have to look at is the pattern & practice overall of the writings. Overall, the WTS blood writings have alot of problems with accuracy. There are countries that do not have the great bounds of religious freedom that our country enjoys. France, Bulgaria, and areas with socialized medicine come to mind. The WTS is a worldwide organization. How are they doing to deal with the blood inaccuracies as they become more widely known? What if countries start to pressure the WTS, like Bulgaria did? Isn't Ireland looking into this problem? Isn't England setting up an inquiry with its charity commission? Didn't Germany do something? Didn't Japan medical authorities issue an edict a few years back on standard care for teenage JWs?
Most of all, the WTS is a business. Do you think it's good business to have it known that your accuracy is bad? From a business standpoint, the Watchtower needs to clean up its writing/quoting style. They will lose more followers now that the Internet is widely available.
Skeeter
slimboyfat

I agree that the Witnesses have been wrong about a lot of medicine. That is not the point. The point is what do you want to do about it.
Do you want to force people to accept treatment they don't want? Or will you let them do what they want, but only after they have sat through an 'information lecture' of some sort first? That's not on. Liberty is about accepting the right of others to make choices we would not make ourselves. Of course there is room for engagement and debate. But there should be no element of coercion.
leavingwt

The point is what do you want to do about it.
For me, personally, I want to stop them from killing babies and children.
I could care less about the rest of it.
Is anyone here suggesting that religious freedom trumps the life of the babies and children that ARE DYING because of this quackery? If so, then you and I have reached an impassse. I will side against the baby killers every time.
slimboyfat

For me, personally, I want to stop them from killing babies and children.
Well that's certainly reasonable. I have come round to the idea that doctors not parents should be able to decide what treatment children get in these sorts of situations. But the it needs to be dealt with sensitively.
For adults the choice is theirs.
leavingwt

Slim, I think we have reached common ground.
TD

Isn't possible culpability of the JW parent organizaiton (Kerry Louderback-Wood) a closely related, but separate issue than respect for the patient's wishes? (Osamu Muromoto)
When it comes to the latter of the two, is the situation always black and white for physicians?
What if for example, the patient has a religious objection to general anesthesia? Should the physician blindly try to accomodate that position? Or should the physician refuse to see the patient at all and turn him/her out on the street?
Does the physician have an ethical obligation to at least ask a few questions before deciding on one of these two extremes? What if it becomes apparent that the patient has been grossly misinformed about the dangers of general anesthesia? What if it becomes apparent that the patient is under considerable coercion? I don't think this type of ehthical dilemma can be dismissed out of hand.
A particularly sad aspect of the JW position is that long term remissions in Witness leukemia patients are extremely rare. (There was a fairly recent article in The Oncologist on this subject. "Faith, Identity and Leukemia --When Blood Products Are Not An Option")
Shouldn't a physician at least inform a prospective JW patient of this fact before embarking on a painful, hellish regimen of chemotherapy that probably won't work anyway?
slimboyfat

Does the physician have an ethical obligation to at least ask a few questions before deciding on one of these two extremes? What if it becomes apparent that the patient has been grossly misinformed about the dangers of general anesthesia? What if it becomes apparent that the patient is under considerable coercion? I don't think this type of ehthical dilemma can be dismissed out of hand.
Oh yes I think a doctor should ask if the person is sure. Have they given it serious thought? Is anyone pressuring them? But I don't think they should be wheeling out Golden Age magazines on vaccination or debating whether Witnesses overstate the dangers of blood, because fundamentally if the choice is made on religious grounds then it's not appropriate to start a debate on those lines. If the patient volunteers, "you know, I don't really believe what the Watchtower teaches about God forbidding blood, but they are right that blood is too dangerous so I won't have any", then surely that would prompt more discussion. But if the patient has made up their mind, and is not being pressured, then I just don't think it is appropriate for doctors or others to intervene to "correct" what they perceive to be mistaken ideological views.
Shouldn't a physician at least inform a prospective JW patient of this fact before embarking on a painful, hellish regimen of chemotherapy that probably won't work anyway?
Yes I think they should. Surely they must already do that. Did the article suggest doctors were holding back the consequences of such decisions from patients?
besty

The bottom line is this: JWs refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons.
Thanks for clarifying what the bottom line is Steve2 - I had no idea!
And either you are a member of the Governing Body and genuinely do speak on behalf of 7 million JW's, or you are making quite a sweeping generalization there.
The medical arguments they adduce are used to support their religious stand, not vice versa.
It is not the the vice or the versa that is relevant here - the question remains as to why they are using medically unsound arguments to support a religious belief?
Most reasonable people do not seek to restrict religious freedoms - they do seek adequate protection for the general public.
It seems to me exactly like Intelligents Design'ers appealing to pseudo-science to support an idea that is factually untenable.
Anyone with 101 knowledge of due process knows that 2 years is insufficent time to declare something 'a dead duck'.
passwordprotected

Doctor: I have to tell you that you need chemotherapy to treat your cancer or you'll die.
Patient: But I don't want it. My minister told me that it would put demon bugs in my brain and that I'll thereafter be compelled to run about in a pink towelling robe shouting "Jehoshaphat!"
Doctor:....ok, next patient, please.
OR;
Doctor: I have to tell you that you need chemotherapy to treat your cancer or you'll die.
Patient: But I don't want it. My minister told me that it would put demon bugs in my brain and that I'll thereafter be compelled to run about in a pink towelling robe shouting "Jehoshaphat!" and that God will be angry.
Doctor: Hmm. Well, your minister is incorrect. [Insert rational and reasonable expose as to why the minister's ascertions are medically and scripturally wrong].
Patient: Still don't want it.
Doctor: Now you've made an informed choice. Next patient, please.
Or I suppose it's better than some suits in an office in America decide what's best, resulting in parents around the world having 'practise sessions' with their kids so that the kids know best how to refuse medical treatments like blood transfusions, while those same suits are writing articles stating fractions of blood are ok.

Awesome blog re blood issue

Share this