Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

wasblind

"As OUTLAW says.... @djeggnog sounds Watchtarded."
I'm ashamed of y'all, you all know good-n-well DJ sound
like that because he has been dilligent in the preachin' work
around Fukushima and he is exhausted
djeggnog

@jgnat:
I am impressed that you took the time to respond to all posters on this thread. That's a lot of finger gymnastics!
Not really. I talk to my PC and it types whatever it is I might say. I say "might say" because part of this process is correcting the recognition errors that Dragon NaturallySpeaking makes, although transcription accuracy is probably somewhere around 95%. It takes a bit of time (which I've already put in!) to train Dragon to say what you "might" have said, but after years of doing this, Dragon pretty much "knows" my voice, what I am saying. BTW I'm using Dragon NaturallySpeaking Professional, and I do not recommend either the Dragon NaturallySpeaking "Standard" or "Preferred" editions. I understand that there is a Mac version called "Dragon Dictate," formerly known as "Macspeech Dictate," which is a port from the predecessor of Dragon NaturallySpeaking, also called, "Dragon Dictate," but my Dragon runs quite well under Win7, WinXP and WinVista.
If abstaining from blood is strictly a religious choice, why does the Watchtower society cite concerns over blood transfusions (i.e. hepatitis)?
Before ephedra was banned in 2004 here in the US, and before the FDA began to issue consumer warnings about ephedra use, people were buying ephedra as an herbal remedy, which was being used as a dietary supplement to help them or the people for whom they were buying this herbal remedy to lose weight. After 2004, people here in Southern California were driving across the border into Mexico to buy ephedra, which had been banned here in the US. Before the ban, an article was published in the December 22, 2003 issue of the Awake! magazine entitled "Herbal Remedies-Can They Help You?" which warned the public that over 100 reported US deaths had been linked to ephedra. The article also served to remind Christians of the need to cleanse themselves of "every defilement of flesh and spirit." (2 Corinthians 7:1)
While the article didn't go into detail, the side effects of ephedra use included vomiting, hypertension, itchy skins, itchy scalp, headache, dizziness, seizures, irritability, dehydration, vomiting, profuse perspiration, hyperthermia, irregular heartbeat, insomnia, heart attack, stroke and death. After the ban, there were people here in Southern California that were warning folks not to keep driving to Mexico so that they could buy and keeping using ephedra for weight loss purposes, so why do you suppose the Society cited concerns against ephedra use? Do you think it had something to do with these side effects and our love for neighbor? Do you believe that true worship involves looking out for our own interests and not for the interests of other people? (1 Corinthians 10:24; 13:5) Quite frankly, Jehovah's Witnesses have no need to seek your approval or the approval of others in what we do, for we can exult in what things we are doing for our neighbors, "and not in comparison with the other person." Galatians 6:4)
Does this not create an aversion to blood, aside from the religious reason? Why would the society do this?
Do you mean like when we warned folks about ephedra use? Do you think there to have been no religious reason associated with that warning? Here's our "religious reason" for warning folks about the dangers associated with the acceptance of blood transfusions, which are typically offered by doctors as part of the regimen of medical treatment: "You must love your neighbor as yourself," and as to this "kingly law," it is our endeavor as Jehovah's Witnesses to carry this out. (Romans 13:9; James 2:8) What we do is our business, @jgnat. Why is what we are doing of any concern to you?
Beyond this, the WTBTS promotes bloodless options - my offence to the white lab coats - which I have called pseudo-science. Again, if this is strictly a religious prohibition, why an emphasis on options that MIGHT offer the believer the hope that certain death is not the ultimate consequence?
This is a case of you being of a different opinion that we as to the use of blood transfusions. We don't care that you think you know best which options are valid and should be offered. Jehovah's Witnesses also have an opinion, and we believe you are entitled to yours.
I'll give a personal anecdote to explain the [medical] community's conservatism and why bloodless alternatives have not globally replaced transfusions.
I saw nothing anecdotal about the story you shared in your post. Common to the human family is the fact that people get sick and die. When I joined this thread, I understood that it was supposed to be about blood fractions. I had no way of appreciating that it would become expanded to tout the superiority of hospital births over home births. No one has intimated -- I know that I didn't intimate -- that anything at all has replaced blood transfusions. What I have said is worth repeating: Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten the word out to both Witnesses and non-Witnesses of their need to be wary of those who would try to convince them of the myth that a blood transfusion can save their life, because no doctor can promise anyone that the blood transfusions they accept will, in fact, save anyone's life.
I've also said that the risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain. I stand by this statement because it is the truth and I don't care that you don't like what we are doing. If it were true that blood transfusions save lives, then none of the people that have received them would have died. I care about other people and you only care about you. You think people should take a risk because you are a risk-taker. But the risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain. You haven't heard me.
No doctor can guarantee anyone to whom he or she gives a blood transfusion will not die, or that a blood transfusion will not lead to complications due to a compromised immune system. Many hospitals today administer blood that is more than two weeks old, and the fact that they continue to do this to their patients has introduced a significant risk of complications, including post-operative infections, respiratory problems, kidney failure or death.
In reviewing some 6,000 heart surgical patient records, a 2008 study found that patients receiving blood that was more than two weeks' old not only had a significantly higher risk of complications, but an adversely impacted immune system found in critically ill patients led to things like colorectal cancer recurrence and organ failure, because a blood transfusion lowers the host's immune response and its ability to fight off infections, so that it predisposes a sick patient for the inset of infections that their immune system could have fought off were it not for the transfused blood. I only wish you were able to listen to me.
Which brings me to the human fallibility in assessing risk. I can guarantee, djeggnogg, that the riskiest life-or-death choice you've made in the past week was to take a ride in a motor-vehicle....
How did this become a discussion about assessing risk? Why did the discussion turn to one about the risks associated with blood transfusions? What made you decide not to discuss blood fractions in this thread? That this is your thread doesn't satisfactorily answer these questions.
Whole blood is not an off-the-shelf commodity. It is not stored at a pharmacy, and you can't get a prescription for it. Why isn't it widely available to citizens? Because blood carries risks....
No, blood isn't a prescription drug. It doesn't come with a warning label. It doesn't carry any risks. Its use carries risks like the ones I mentioned above.
Why would a conservative medical establishment continue to use blood? Because for certain circumstances, only whole blood will do.
No, hospitals, doctors, continue to use blood because this is that they've always done. Earlier in this thread, I quoted Dr. Aryeh Shander, Chief of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, who stated: "If you can't demonstrate benefit, all you are offering the patient is risk." You want to believe blood transfusions are life-saving; they are not life-saving. The transfusion of whole blood into patients predisposes them for infections that their compromised immune system can no longer defend against. But you don't want to hear this.
I know of an infant who contracted hepatitis from a blood transfusion at birth. He attended intensive medical supervision for the first year of his life to monitor his liver health as a consequence. Why did he get blood? Because of an incompatibility with his mother's blood type, he was critically anemic at birth. The blood transfusion saved his life.
What did the infant contract from a blood transfusion at birth? Hepatitis, was it? Why did the doctors give this infant blood? "Because of an incompatibility with his mother's blood type, he was critically anemic at birth"? No. This infant was given a blood transfusion because this is what the doctors have always done and for no other reason.
Why does the society, besides quoting the religious prohibition, also go in to great detail on the risk of blood transfusions, and glory in the bloodless alternatives being developed?
This question has been asked and answered, but I can answer it in a different way: The reason -- the only reason -- that you find Jehovah's Witnesses publishing to non-Jehovah's Witnesses what the adverse effects associated with blood transfusions are is to strengthen the faith of those that listen to us in God, that they, like we, might come to appreciate the benefits that accrue to those showing a willingness to obey God in everything.
Aren't they emphasizing the dangers of transfusion, and diminishing the risk of refusing it?
Yes and no. It is not the Society, but Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the ones emphasizing the dangers associated with accepting blood transactions and Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the ones that are unwilling to understate the risks associating with the acceptance of blood transfusions by the medical community at large. Your question is phrased as "diminishing the risk of refusing," instead of "enlarging upon the risks of anyone accepting a blood transfusion," but I'm sure the fact that you are a cheerleader in this regard isn't lost on anyone.
When Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20), we are really exercising our faith in Jesus' precious blood. The use of blood fractions doesn't diminish our appreciation for the life that blood represents since it is by our faith in Jesus' blood that "we shall be saved by his life." (Romans 5:10)
This skews the Witness's ability to make an informed decision about risk.
What are talking about? The issue that Jehovah's Witnesses have regarding the unauthorized use of blood is that such use perverts the use to which God had specifically directed blood to be used, namely, for sacrificial use only. All of the animal sacrifices that were offered on God's alter under the Law of Moses foreshadowed Jesus' laying down his life as a ransom for all mankind as a sacrificial lamb, as it were. God put blood on his altar for the express purpose of its being used to atone for sins, because blood represents the human life that Jesus gave for mankind's sins, as Jesus' shed blood means forgiveness of sins and on which lies the basis of our hope for everlasting life.
Even before going into the hospital, Jehovah's Witnesses know better than most people the risks associated with our accepting a blood transfusion in connection with the medical treatment we receive. 'If the doctors cannot demonstrate the benefits that accrue from our agreeing to accept a blood transfusion, we know that all they are offering us is risk.' But there is a moral principle that drives the decision of Jehovah's Witnesses to reject blood transfusions.
Jehovah's Witnesses have learned from the Bible that blood is not a commodity, but it is sacred; man has absolutely no right to be selling blood for money, no right whatsoever to be using it in a manner that is not approved by God. The only reason Jehovah's Witnesses publish the adverse effects associated with blood transfusions is to strengthen not just our own faith, but to strengthen the faith of those that listen to us in that we, and they, might actually appreciate the benefits that accrue to those obeying God.
You also responded to my question regarding witness repugnance to blood transfusions. In the link I provided regarding Canadian "mature minors" refusing blood transfusions, two Witness children described the transfusions they received as "spiritual rape". I don't think the hospital nurses introduced this [description]. Neither does the bible use this expression. Why does the society depict life-saving blood transfusions as something so horrible?
Why are you lumping together what a couple of Witness children said in Canada, who are not really Jehovah's Witnesses until they are baptized as such, as to their characterization of being forcibly given blood transfusions by the doctors in a hospital of the experience as being akin, in their view, to "spiritual rape" with the Society? I've never seen the word "grandfather," "organization" or the words "governing body" in the Bible either.
You seem to revere blood transfusions, but what is your personal view of doctors that prescribe drugs like Valium, Xanax, Ativan or Ritalin to adults with ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), formerly called ADD (Attention-Deficit Disorder)? Adults with ADHD are regularly losing things, cannot sit for long periods of time (e.g., meetings), and can hardly finish the tasks they start.
What are your thoughts about medicating kids, about doctors that prescribe these same drugs to children with ADHD? Like adults, kids with ADHD cannot sit for long periods of time, have difficulty paying attention, regularly daydreams and is forgetful, may pull stunts like throwing things out a window or might exhibit impulsive behavior, like suddenly making a dash toward a busy street. Do you have the same reverence for drugs as you do for blood transfusions, or don't you believe drugs like Valium, Xanax, Ativan or Ritalin are also saving lives?
You describe the life-saving properties of whole blood transfusions as a "myth", I assume from your studious examination of watchtower materials. Congratulations. You have swallowed the lie.
No, I'm an educated person, highly educated. A Bible scholar; also a genius. Not only did I not say anything about "whole blood transfusions" being a myth, since this suggests that I view blood components differently than I do whole blood, nor did I speak about "life-saving properties" of blood being a myth. What I did say that Jehovah's Witnesses want to warn folks about those would try to convince them of the myth that blood transfusions save lives. Do you not see the difference between what you claim I said and what I actually did say? You see, unlike you, I don't believe blood has any life-saving properties in it.
The life-saving qualities of whole blood transfusions is part of conventional, conservative medical practice, as outlined above. If it were not, the medical establishment would have abandoned it long ago.
This is your opinion. I don't believe the medical community will abandon the use of blood transfusions unless and until a spate of deaths should result in their having to defend against too many multi-million dollar lawsuits.
I will gladly side with Caesar when he staunchly defends right to life. Religious prohibitions that endanger life are misguided and dangerous.
To what religious prohibitions do you refer? If you are not here referring to the view of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the sanctity of blood and are only referring to our refusal to accept blood transfusions as being misguided and dangerous, I would need you to prove that our view is misguided and dangerous. I would need you to produce some proof to this effect. I cannot take your word for our refusal to accept blood transfusions being misguided and dangerous.
I can assure you that the US also intervenes in cases where children need blood transfusions....
Your assurances mean absolutely nothing to me. Based on what things I know about blood transfusions, I believe you are just blowing smoke.
As others have responded so well, parents can make foolish, life-risking decisions, but they cannot make that decision for a dependent.
Parents make decisions that affect their children every day. A doctor's opinion doesn't trump the rights of a parent toward their children.
Where the child is at risk of dying without a transfusion, the state will intervene. There are world-wide cases, including in the US, where this has happened.
Ok.
Regardless from what you have been taught from the Watchtower materials, whole blood transfusions are the conventional, conservative choice for a myriad of conditions. The judge takes the word of the medical profession, rather than the blood video. Ask yourself why.
What is this "blood video" stuff that you keep bringing up in this thread? The video to which you keep referring didn't inform me of anything that I had not already learned about the inefficacy of blood transfusions. I know so much more about this subject that do most Jehovah's Witnesses, and more than you even know. I'm an expert on being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, an expert on this subject and mentally tough. Again, what does any of this have to do with blood fractions?
Quote me a newspaper article where a judge refused an order of state custody over a blood transfusion of a minor. The articles I have followed for the past ten years state the opposite, and I provided a link. Can you do the same?
Yes, I can do that. Here's the URL to an appeal decided by the Kansas Court of Appeals involving one of Jehovah's Witnesses and her husband, a Muslim, who was appealing the child custody order with the hope of obtaining sole legal custody of his six-year-old son, who was born to the unmarried couple three years after they had met, during which time the mother (Monica) became one of Jehovah's Witnesses and the father (Adiel) had gone on to leave the mother when the child was about six months old.
The mother eventually went on to file a paternity action when their son was four years old and the matter was finally decided when custody of their son, now seven, was awarded to the appellee mother. Adiel challenged the decision of the district court and brought up, among other things, the Monica' s religious beliefs regarding blood transfusions, which argument the court rejected based on Beebe v. Chavez, [citation intentionally omitted], which held that "If, under the Beebe case, the Court is not allowed to take into consideration a religious practice that discourages treatment by physicians, the Court does not believe that it may consider in this case [Monica's] religious views which prohibit the use of blood products."
The appellee (Monica) had testified that there are 'bloodless therapies' available in lieu of blood transfusions," and she was a licensed practical nurse employed at a hospital, and studying at the time of the trial for her bachelor's degree in nursing. The court in Beebe had held that "a court may not deny custody unless the religious practice poses "an immediate and substantial threat to the temporal well-being of the child."
http://tinyurl.com/5skqjax
Even if I were to post several of such links, your attitude would not change in the least, so I have no real interest in doing that. Bloviation is annoying when an opinionated individual isn't really listening to the other points of view, and you are not listening to me at all.
I suspect you haven't lost a close loved-one.
You suspect wrong. That was also a pretty dumb statement for you to make without your knowing me or anyone in my family.
Your answers to TD and Mary come across as callous.
So what? What business is it of yours what it was I said to someone else? Busybodies aren't spoken of in a praiseworthy way in the Bible; they are lumped with murderers, thieves, and evidoers. (1 Peter 4:15) You seem to me to be a rather judgmental person, but why?
I can guarantee that both became experts in their loved-one's diseases, and were convinced by the medical authorities that in these types of cases, only whole blood would do. All the articles on fractions cannot escape this fact.
This statement is both interesting and false. Neither @TD nor @Mary became experts. I am an expert, and I didn't become such by simply observing the ordeal to which one of my loved ones was forced to experience. Why do you make such absurd statements anyway, @jgnat? Because you can and no one on JWN has ever called you on them before? You can live for the next 40 or 50 years and you will never acquire the kind of knowledge and wisdom that I possess on many disparate topics. I thought we were going to discuss blood fractions, but you didn't really do this.
About my ability to comprehend the Witness doctrine, consider that I have assisted my husband in many of his studies and attend some conventions and assemblies for the past ten years. I have watched the blood video and helped my husband negotiate the minefield of choices on his stance on blood.
What "minefield of choices" are you talking about? Again you have here mentioned this "blood video" that you saw as if your bragging to me about having seen a movie should mean something significant to me. (It doesn't.) You do not comprehend the Bible doctrines regarding blood transfusions or blood fractions as would one of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though you may now be married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I briefly studied with a sister and we mutually terminated the arrangement. I am confident that I have learned enough to confirm that the Witnesses are not the exclusive holders of the "truth" as they claim. Nevertheless I am very, very familiar with their stand on blood, college education, identification of the anointed, shunning, , "divided households", meeting attendance, field service, and the value of book study.
Again, you do not comprehend any of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but only think you do. I could take you on with each of the things you mention here and prove what it is you don't know, but I won't waste your time or mine in such an unprofitable endeavor. I want to say in the strongest terms that you do not understand the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses on blood, even though I have articulated our stand with respect to blood, blood transfusions and fractions in this rather lengthy post.
About my husband's willingness or ability to inform himself, you silly, silly person, to presume to "know" what he would do in an emergency. I live with the man.
I don't presume to know what your husband will do in an emergency. You have spun what it was I stated in an earlier post, from which the following comes:
[@jgnat wrote:]
My husband for one. He does not fully understand the consequences and hopes the decision will be taken out of his hands.
[@djeggnog wrote:]
If anyone should find themselves having to face a surgical procedure of any kind, I cannot imagine that your husband would not inform himself of the potential consequences that will ensue were he to accept a blood transfusion. Often an employee doesn't bother to read the section in the Employment Manual on his or her Worker's Compensation benefits until an accident occurs on the day and he needs to know how much of his or her regular salary he or she will receive while they on Worker's Comp leave, but eventually they do inform themselves, and so would your husband.
As you should be able to see, unless you are blind, I didn't presume anything at all about your husband. Please don't put your own spin on my words. If you are going to quote me, quote me verbatim, because I do not trust your command of the English language enough to trust that you would know how to paraphrase my words without twisting them beyond recognition. Again, I never presumed to "'know' anything" as to what your husband would or wouldn't do in an emergency.
@djeggnog
cantleave

Don't mess with the Eggnog
ProdigalSon

I sincerely hope that pic is photoshopped.....
Mary

egghead said: Neither @TD nor @Mary became experts. I am an expert, and I didn't become such by simply observing the ordeal to which one of my loved ones was forced to experience.
You're an expert at nothing egghead, except in your own very vivid imagination. Care to explain why the Israelites were allowed to sell unbled meat to foreigners with Jehovah's blessing if the command not to eat blood was 'binding on all mankind' as JWs assert? And see if you can do it without reciting the entire Insight Volume, okay? Just tell me in a couple of sentences why this was allowed.
jgnat

Re: The subject of this threadThis topic is not about blood fractions. As you will recall from my first post it was about:
"I've seen the Blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view. The Watchtower society leaves the impression that bloodless alternatives are safe. Witnesses who follow this advice in good conscience put their lives at risk every day."
I've stuck to my original topic and garnered from you an admission that the religious prohibition on blood must be followed, even if it results in death. I've now moved on to the deceptive practice of the Watchtower to try and make this doctrine more palatable by suggesting bloodless alternatives are safe(different than the fraction debate), and by making transfusions sound scary.
You are a lliving example of the success of the Watchtower's approach with it's members, as you speak of the "myth" of the life-saving qualities of blood transfusions. The truth of the matter is that blood transfusions are standard medical protocol to treat a myriad of conditions. That's no myth.
man has absolutely no right to be selling blood for money (djeggnogg)
You might be interested to learn that in Canada, blood donation is entirely voluntary. There is no renumeration other than a small cookie. I sincerely hope the Canadian-Jehovah's Witness-hemopehliacs send a regular thank you card to the Canadian Red Cross and it's volunteers and donors.
Re: Watchtower as a health advisoryIt's nice that the Awake mentioned concerns with ephedra. Does the WTBTS run an annual ephedra information month and make sure that everyone signs their ephedra free cards? How many Watchtower articles and videos have been dedicated to this subject?
Why has the Watchtower published a video for outsiders and the medical profession on their blood stand? In this case, the evidence indicates that the WTBTS does care about public opinion. Me, I'll rely on WHO warnings, thank you.
You obviously, from your reading, are convinced that blood transfusions are far too dangerous to consider. The WHO has concluded the opposite. Why do you rely on a religious magazine as your primary source for medical advice?
Forming an opinion that blood alternatives are safer than transfusions is not medically sound. This is a dangerous opinion because it could cost you your life.
Medical opinions I trust involve double-blind tests, publishing results in recognized medical journals, and repeatability through peer review and re-testing these results.
Re: Aversion to blood and why I careNeedless deaths concern me, as I also have religious reasons why I care what happens to my neighbour, and my bible training has led me to a deep reverence for life. I am moved by the disaster in Japan, for instance.
You have also suggested that I revere blood transfusions. Well, this is a discussion on blood so it will come up. Rather than reverence for blood, I would characterize my concern as reverence for life.
Re: Blood FractionsRegardless of what agenda you arrived with on this thread, this is not about blood fractions. The society has provided an arbitrary list of fractions that may be accepted, and what can not. This again is mixing "science" with bible interpretation, so is inherently flawed. Posters have provided you with multiple examples where this fraction interpretation would not have saved the life of their loved-ones.
How could I debate the fraction doctrine? There is no discussion of fractions in Paul's letter, so this is a Talmudic addition offered by the Governing Body. We'd have to get in to a discussion of the divine right of the Governing Body to make these sorts of doctrinal shifts. I think that would deserve it's own debate. Bible scholars have shown how accepting fractions flies in the face of the original intent; to honor the sacredness of blood as a symbol of life.
You have also taken the interesting position that Paul's prohibition has no connection to the Old Testament practices. This must be unique to you, as I cannot imagine that the Watchtower Society has failed to make the connection.
Regarding a medical description of blood components, again I prefer medical sources. Here's one - http://anthro.palomar.edu/blood/blood_components.htm
Here are two medical facts for you to chew over.
Regarding plasma components, the WTS has approved three for the accepted list; albumin, globulins, and clotting factors. Plasma contains over 4000 different chemicals, including blood clotting factors, sugars, lipids, vitamins, minerals, hormones, enzymes, antibodies, and other proteins. Though the WTS does not say so, I assume that transfusion of water, sugars, vitamins, and minerals are also accepable to Witnesses.
Regarding platelet components, the WTS has approved one; wound healing factor (no doubt to support it's hemopheliac population). There are more than a dozen types of blood clotting factors and platelets that need to interact in the blood clotting process. Recent research has shown that platelets help fight infections by releasing proteins that kill invading bacteria and some other microorganisms. In addition, platelets stimulate the immune system. Witnesses who reject whole blood will lose out on these benefits.
Why the medical profession uses whole bloodI maintain that the medical profession continues to use whole blood because of it's native conservatism (my anectodal story where you missed my point). Their entire agenda and mandate is to save lives.
You suggest the medical profession continues to use whole blood out of habit. (i.e. hospitals, doctors, continue to use blood because this is that they've always done.) I disagree with you, and the WHO disagrees with you. Is the Watchtower's primary mandate to save temporal lives or absolute obedience to God's commands? The WTS agenda, I believe, is far more suspect when it comes to medical matters.
Consider the speed by which the medical profession has adopted the MRI as a diagnostic tool. Doctors haven't continued to depend soley on x-rays simply becaus that is what they've "always done". Medical conservatism does not mean that doctor's won't grab the best when it becomes available.
Why the Society delves in to medicine to bolster their positionI find it interesting that you suggest it is to bolster the faith of the Witnesses. You are no doubt familiar with Paul's statement at Hebrews 1:1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith is not - and should not - be bolstered by secular facts. Secular knowledge changes and the Christian who depends on these will find their "faith" shaken every time new facts come in to evidence. Case in point, the Christians that depended on a view of the universe where the sun orbited the earth, were deeply shaken by the discoveries of Galileo. Did this disprove faith? Not if their faith was on the proper foundation.
I would suggest rather that the Society delves in to medicine to make their religious prohibition sound less dangerous. From a religious point of view, they should not do this. From a secular point of view, they should stay out of disciplines they are not trained in (medicine).
Ceaser and the protection of lifeWe're talking about blood transfusions on this thread, but I think the broader principle applies. When life is put in danger by a misguided religious belief, the secular authorities are justified to intervene. This is indeed the direction our government and our courts have taken. For example, there are churches that regularly handle poisonous snakes, in obedience to scripture (Mark 16:17-18). Their religous belief, rather than being treated as sacrosanct by the authorities, is illegal. What do you think? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html
I see that you have refused to consider solid examples where the courts have granted temporary custody in order to give life-saving blood transfusions to dependent children in the US (i.e. "OK"). Can't escape facts, buddy. Your reasoning failed you. You assumed that an American judge would never approve a blood transfusion over a parent's (religious) reasons. In fact, judges frequently and routinely have. American judges have believed medical experts over the Jehovah's Witnesses that blood transfusions were needed to save the life of a child.
Your court example did not involve a child in imminent danger, so does not apply. All your decision is saying is that Jehovah's Witnesses are competent parents regardless of their belief in blood transfusions. I have not disputed this. However, I would maintain that this seven year old child were ever in imminent danger from loss of blood, the court would intervene - temporarily.
About my knowledge of the Jehovah's Witness position on bloodI am as informed on the blood doctrine as the average witness, having access to the same materials that the average witness is provided. You may have super-knowledge on the subject, but the average witness (i.e. my husband) does not. I mentioned this background to indicate that my sources are not merely from opposers, but from published materials provided by the society itself. It is a logical error to assume that any reader or watcher of these materials would come to the same conclusion you have. They have not convinced the courts, they have not convinced the medical profession, and they have not convinced me.
Bait and SwitchYou have no answer to the description of a blood transfusion as "spiritual rape". What does medical treatment for non life-threatening conditions have to do with the blood doctrine? Again, assessment of risk is at play. A child with ADD may have a slightly elevated risk of injury, but a person who experiences a sudden, catastrophic loss of blood will certainly die without intervention.
You fail to see the lie, so remind me that you are a highly educated person, a genius. Even highly intelligent people can be persuaded to believe a lie. Intelligent people, rather, can be very adept at justifiying erroneous beliefs. Check out Newton's study of the occult and prophecy some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies Blood transfusions save lives. This is a fact; no myth. The WHO agrees with me.
Re: Relative Listening SkillsOh, yes, I've heard your claim that it is a myth that blood transfusions save lives. Your claim is dangerous because it is untrue. The WHO disagrees with you. I prefer to take the word on medical matters from the medical profession.
You've failed to apply my descripion of risk assessment when it comes to blood. Blood transfusions do not have to be 100% effective to be preferred. Transfusions are reserved for the most critical of conditiions, where absence of blood leads to certain death. The blood gives the patient a chance. The ability of blood to save life is so well-proven that the medical profession accepts it as standard protocol for certain conditions. Again, you've come to a faulty conclusion due to your failure to assess risk when it comes to transfusions. There is nothing in the quote by Dr. Areyh Shander to suggest that only no-risk options are safe. Every decision we make in life carries risk.
I see you have switched to an "us" versus "them" point of view, and are now asking me to stay out of your sandbox (i.e. Why is what we are doing of any concern to you?). Have you noticed your tendency to resort aggressive language (i.e. Why do you make such absurd statements anyway, @jgnat? Because you can and no one on JWN has ever called you on them before?) and to your expertise when threatened? I think we can both safely say that there is no potential for a meeting of mind and heart between us on this issue. I also find no satisfaction in repeating myself. The only value that can be obtained by continuing this discussion is to lead you in to ever more ridiculous statements, for the entertainment of the reaing audience. I'll abstain.
PSacramento

It truly boggles the mind...
Saddens the heart...
I ask my lord to show mercy on people like DJ, since he is blaspheming against the HS, but the blood on his hands and the hands of so many JW's cries out.
Saddens my heart in a way that I can't even express.
jgnat

New York State Council on Human Blood and Transfusion Services, GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFUSION OF RED BLOOD CELLS – ADULTS, Second Edition, 2004
Blood Transfusion Protocol at Stanford Surgery ICU , 2007
Practice Guidelines for Blood Transfusion, American Red Cross, A compilation from Recent Peer-Reviewed Literature, Second Edition, April 2007
Universal Access to Safe Blood Transfusion, World Health Organization, 2008
Each year, more than 100 million people sustain injuries and more than five million die from
violence and injury. Road traffic accidents are the second leading cause of all deaths and the
primary reason for serious injury in people aged 5 to 29 years. 1 More than 536 000 women die
each year during pregnancy or childbirth, 99% of them in developing countries. 2 Haemorrhage is
the principal cause of maternal deaths worldwide, accounting for up to 44% of maternal deaths
in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa. 3 Up to 20% of maternal mortality and 15% of child deaths
have been attributed to severe anaemia due to malaria in the Southern African Region. 4 Timely
access to safe blood transfusion is a life-saving measure in many of these clinical conditions and
can also prevent serious illness in these patients.
TD

djeggnog:
I've also said that the risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain. I stand by this statement because it is the truth....
With respect djeggnog; Could you elaborte on this when you have time? I admit I'm skeptical, but I'm not so close-minded that I don't want to see your research.
Earlier in this thread, I quoted Dr. Aryeh Shander, Chief of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, who stated: "If you can't demonstrate benefit, all you are offering the patient is risk."
Dr. Shander maintains a very high transfusion threshold, but surely you're aware that as an anesthesiologist he has ordered his share of transfusions for patients with no religious objections to the procedure? Shander advocates a policy of "blood management" and defines it as
"The appropriate use of blood and blood components with a goal of minimizing their use." (Goodnough L. Shander A. Blood Management Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:695)
One of his professional affliations is in fact with the American Association of Blood Banks and he's stated more than once that the blood supply is overtaxed and should be conserved for true emergencies.
I've watched the two videos, "No Blood: Medicine Meets The Challenge" and "Transfusion Alternatives" and I think a valid criticism would not be for what was said so much as what was not said.
Bloodless medicine works through blood conservation -- that is to say limiting blood loss by both controlling the bleeding and salvaging exsanguinated blood as much as humanly possible. When blood is properly conserved, the patient never reaches whatever transfusion threshold the surgical team has set and so never becomes an issue. Almost every major city in the developed world has a bloodless medical center and in this regard, Jehovah's Witnesses have a lot to be proud of.
But bleeding can't always be controlled, especially in trauma cases. In the video "Transfusion Alternatives" Dr. Shander does acknowledge the importance of prompt action in trauma cases:
"When looking at principles in patients who have trauma or massive blood - unanticipated blood loss is first and foremost, act quickly. The cessation of bleeding whether surgically or in other means must be the first principle."
Unfortunately, I think the complications of less than prompt action are lost on the average person. There is a window of several minutes when someone who has bled to death can be brought back. (This is death in the technical sense. No pulse, no respiration, no blood pressure, pupils unreactive, etc. --We don't need to discuss the spiritual aspects of death.)
For example, a woman on a camping trip is accidently shot through the abdomen with a hunting arrow. Because of the remoteness of the location, response time is nearly 40 minutes and she has completely bled out into her abdominal cavity when emergency services arrive. That blood cannot be salvaged for obvious reasons. Resuscitating her and keeping her alive while the damage is repaired takes 42 units of plasma and whole blood which is several times the entire circulatory volume of the average person. You don't need any special medical training to see the problem here. Nobody can have that much of their blood drained out and replaced with a simple plasma expander even once, let alone several times over.
Another thing I'm not sure everyone realizes is that bloodless medicine is still largely unavailable in many poor and backward countries. A bloodless liver transplant performed in Canada or the U.S. or Great Britain or any other developed country is fantastic. In practical terms what does that mean to the man in Rwanda whose legs have been crushed by a piece of farm equipment?
The harsh reality of poverty was expressed in the British Medical Journal by a medical director in Uganda:
EDITOR: Minerva reports that a Jehovah's Witness survived emergency surgery for a leaking abdominal aneurysm despite having a postoperative haemoglobin concentration of only 30g/l; he spent 14 weeks in hospital. Those of us who work in rural Africa can only wonder how much it cost in the face of claims of rationing and cost cutting in the NHS. Such a stay must easily have cost a six figure sum. Here in Uganda for £250,000 a year we can treat 25,000 outpatients and 7000 inpatients, conduct over 1000 deliveries, and perform 1500 operations. We run a community health programme for 500,000 people. The costs incurred by this one patient might run our unit for a whole year.
...The choice is easy here in Uganda. When a child who has severe anaemia from malaria with hookworm infestation and undernutrition comes in the choice is simple: he or she has a transfusion or dies. (BMJ 1999 March 27;318(7187):873)
A third area that doesn't seem to be fully explored in these videos is pathology. A diagnoisis of acute leukemia, aplastic anemia, lymphoma or Hodgkins’s disease is terrible news for anyone, but it is especially bad for Jehovah's Witnesses.
In 2002, an article appeared in The Oncologist entitled, "Faith, Identity and Leukemia: When Blood Products are Not an Option." The article was aimed at helping medical professionals deal with the feelings of guilt, frustration and anger associated with the loss of Witness leukemia patients while still respecting their wishes. It contained a series of short interviews with the medical staff that had attended to a Witness patient who had recently died of acute myelocytic leukemia. Some of the nurses still felt very bad about what had happened:
"When she made the decision to accept the bovine product, we started to question her choices, asking, "What does this really mean? Why is she doing this? Why doesn’t she just take blood?" There was a conflict there because she was also telling us that she still wanted everything done. She wanted everything done, but she wouldn’t take the one essential thing that would save her life." (Faith, Identity and Leukemia: When Blood Products are Not an Option The Oncologist 2002;7:372)
Everyone agreed that this woman had been fully informed of the consequences of her decision. Intense chemotherapy will bring the production of red cells and platelets to a complete standstill and bone marrow transplant involves a period of months when the patient is not producing them at all. Hundreds of transfusions are often required.
You might remember the case of Anissa Ayala, a teenage girl who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia in the late 1980’s. She needed a bone marrow transplant and neither of her parents or her older brother could provide a match. Her parents decided to conceive another child on the wild chance that a match could be found in time:
Anissa is in her forties now:
The lives of many thousands of people like Anissa have been saved, but transfusion remains an integral part of this procedure and Witnesses are not viable candidates. Maybe that will change someday. We can hope.
JW GoneBad

'I sincerely hope the Canadian-Jehovah's Witness-hemopehliacs send a regular thank you card to the Canadian Red Cross and it's volunteers and donors.'
Would be nice......but ain't goin to happen!
WTBTS are like thankless leeches.

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

Share this