What about my questions?
Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine
by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
sabastious
I figured out who DJ reminds me of! MINKUS
-Sab
-
sabastious
if God said don't do it, then we don't do it.
bumper sticker if I ever seen one.
-Sab
-
jgnat
…starts with the doctors that make some outrageous statements to the public …(DJ)
Medical ethics prevents doctors from speaking publicly about individual cases. Examples, please.
as to how horrible Jehovah's Witnesses are as parents to allow their children to die for religious reasons "when a blood transfusion could have saved their lives" ….(DJ)
Do you mean when a doctor recommends to the state that they take temporary custody of a child where it’s life is in danger? http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/prin1cs.html
…is religious persecution being brought to bear against us because we regard blood as sacred and…(DJ)
Over and over again in the bioethics, it is stressed to respect the patient and their right to make decisions regarding their own health. The doctor does have a duty to inform, to confirm that the patient is fully aware of the potential consequences and risk of their decision.
I suggest rather that a religious organization’s foray in to medicine – suggesting that blood transfusions are too risky and suggesting that bloodless alternatives are superior - is persecution against the medical community.
If the Governing Body had contained their religious education to the bible directive alone, I would have more respect for their position. Jehovah’s Witnesses should be fully informed that their religious decision carries a real risk of temporal death.
….these folks that bash us do not and hardly believe in God. (DJ)
Are you suggesting that there are no God-fearing doctors?
Isn’t the problem for the society rather, that in certain medical emergencies, doctors continue to recommend blood transfusions; regardless of a certain religious magazine’s claims of risk? It makes the Watchtower Society look bad.
If a 17-year-old kid, who has returned from the war in Afghanistan to his home in the US with legs that no longer work where wet gangrene has set into them so that amputation is required, should refuse to accept this life-saving operation, which will save his life and without which he is going to die, does the doctor have more right than the parents of his young man to decide to overrule this young man's wishes which his parents support? Do you believe this kid to be committing suicide, or would you consider the parents of this 17-year-old to be murderers for supporting their son's wishes in this regard for personal non-religious reasons? (DJ)
What if the 17 year old kid were seven?
What if the kid was prepared to accept the amputation, until he had a conversation with his parents?
What if the doctor did not fully inform the kid of the consequences of his decision (certain death)?
A fully informed adult has the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment; religious or not. If there is question on how informed he is the medical profession can intervene. Children, unformed to their final opinion, are protected.
If the parents were fully informed and encouraged the young man to refuse treatment, they are guilty of manslaughter. If the young man was fully informed and refused treatment, he committed a type of suicide.
Transfused blood cannot save anyone's life forever, but Jesus' ransom blood is able to save life forever.(DJ)
I was hoping you’d bring this up. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do show preference for the future life over temporal life. This is contrary to the re-occurring theme of “reverence for life” found in the bible. The miracle of temporal life, where God breathed and we were, is a holy thing all of itself.
By the way, religious suicide bombers also value their future, spiritual life over temporal life.
How would you know a good argument when you hear one? (DJ)
Use of reasoned debate, including absence of ad-hominem, circular reasoning, and other logical errors.
http://www.cfimichigan.org/images/uploads/pdf/Top20LogicalFallacies-Tikkanen.pdf
-
TD
djeggnog:
What do you mean? It is red blood cells that take oxygen to the tissues of the human body. I don't see what an organ transplant has to do with blood transfusions, since, like any foreign tissue, blood transfusion is a tissue transplant and can suppress the immune system leading to immunologic reactions.
Unfortunately, immune suppression is a common effect of all organ and most tissue transplantation. Transfusion falls under the category of tissue rather than organ transplant but the two are closely connected and the moral issues are virtually identical.
I mentioned alcohol, but why do you here refer to penicillin as 'a simple compound'?
Penicillin is a simple compound:
It's a simple, but ingenious enzyme inhibiter that interferes with the polymerization of peptidoglycan. This damages the cell membrane of a very wide range of bacteria and kills them. Compare the simplicity of the Penicillin molecule above with the hemoglobin molecule below:
The hemoglobin molecule is too large to pass directly through the lining of your stomach and intestine. When hemoglobin is consumed in black pudding or blood sausage, it is broken down and destroyed by the digestive system and constituent compounds are used as food. If it's human hemoglobin in the food, then this satisfies the definition of cannibalism
What are these "physical and moral differences" that you say exists between someone that eats human tissue and the transplantation of human tissue as is done when one receives a blood transfusion? You're making no sense to me, @TD. My analogy to penicillin rings true
Maybe this example would help: Human hemoglobin can be cross-linked into a stable polymer and used as an oxygen carrying blood substitute. Polyheme, manufactured by Northfield laboratories is made from human hemoglobin obtained from donated blood whose shelf life has expired. Polyheme has the potential to do a lot of good for Jehovah's Witnesses and it has been allowed as a "Matter of conscience" since the year 2000:
Do you believe that accepting Polyheme is an act of cannibalism? Why or why not?
We're all different and if you don't believe that receiving human hemoglobin intraveneously in the form of a blood substitute like Polyheme is physically and morally distinguishable from consuming human hemoglobin as a food, I respect your right to believe that. But I would point out that this view is not necessarily shared by the Witness community at large and neither the information desk at Patterson nor Hospital Information Services will support that view.
I said:
In-vitro fertilization for a married couple is a preternatural use of the human reproductive system, but it is still a use in accordance with what Jehovah's Witnesses would consider the purpose of the human reproductive system to be. (i.e For married couples to produce children)
Nope.
Notice that I emphasized "married couple" --Sperm donor and egg donor would be husband and wife. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough)
Do you disagree that in-vitro fertilization for a married couple unable to conceive by normal means is a use of the human reproductive system in accordance with its purpose? Why or why not?
You've asked me a number of question pertaining to autonomy and respect for patient's rights. Frankly, I'm not really qualified to discuss them and would probably have to defer to others. I agree that these questions can be difficult. My participation on this thread has revolved around the seriousness of evitable death for lives that have been entrusted to our care. This would primarily be very young children and adults of diminished responsibility
-
OUTLAW
DjEggNogg
@Mary, I am right, and hardly anyone else that has contributed to this thread, including you, has been right......DjEggNogg
.......................
...OUTLAW -
djeggnog
@jgnat:
I suggest rather that a religious organization’s foray in to medicine – suggesting that blood transfusions are too risky and suggesting that bloodless alternatives are superior - is persecution against the medical community.
I don't have more respect for the medical community than I do for the law enforcement community or the educational community or the political community or the Hispanic, Black, Asian, Gay communities. I have no problem with you being an apologist for the medical community, @jgnat. None.
BTW, this post is a response to the barbs you're throwing, since the discussion that drew me to this thread -- your invitation to it -- turned out really to be about this campaign of yours in which you rail against the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to blood transfusions, especially where the children of Jehovah's Witnesses face death over the refusal of their parents to submit to the wisdom of "the medical community" to intercede in their behalf in order to save their lives using blood that they -- not the medical community, but Jehovah's Witnesses -- believe to be sacred, rather that being a discussion about blood fractions.
If the Governing Body had contained their religious education to the bible directive alone, I would have more respect for their position.
You have no respect for God, let alone the position of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are so thick as to believe that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the reason why Jehovah's Witnesses around the world view blood as sacred, that were we not to have a governing body, that we would readily treat blood with the same concept as you do, knowing as we do that it was Jehovah's will that blood would serve as a reminder to His worshippers that their sins were forgiven by virtue of Jesus' own blood, which is the basis of the ransom that saves our lives eternally. This Bible directive to "abstain ... from blood" is absolutely essential on Christians to obey since Jehovah's Witnesses view obedience to God's will to be of vital importance.
Put another way, @jgnat, Jehovah's Witnesses do not have more respect for the medical community that cannot save anyone's life, but for (maybe!) 20, 30 or 40 additional years, than we do for God, who can save us forever. If we have to choose between 20, 30 or 40 years and eternal life, eternal life wins hands down, for we would gladly exchange the loss of 20, 30 or 40 years of life in our present dying state -- and, yes, we are all dying right now in Adamic sin -- for eternal life in sinlessness! Jehovah's Witnesses have faith that you do not have, which is why you cannot comprehend the choice we make in faith to live as being a better one than you would make to die lacking faith, and that's ok.
Jehovah’s Witnesses should be fully informed that their religious decision carries a real risk of temporal death.
Jehovah's Witnesses know well that our religious decision against accepting blood transfusions carry "a real risk of temporal death." We are not ignorant of what we are saying to doctors when we tell them that we do not wish to receive any blood transfusions. We are fully aware that there is the very real possibility that the doctors to whom we say this may not be as competent as are some other doctors to be able to provide quality medical treatment to us without blood, and that before we can find a doctor that can competently provide quality medical treatment to us without blood that we might die. But, please, make no mistake about it, @jgnat: There are doctors that are uniquely qualified to provide medical treatment to patients like Jehovah's Witnesses, who for whatever reason wish good quality medical treatment without the use of blood or blood products.
Isn’t the problem for the society rather, that in certain medical emergencies, doctors continue to recommend blood transfusions; regardless of a certain religious magazine’s claims of risk?
For the Society? No. For Jehovah's Witnesses? Sometimes yes, because not all Jehovah's Witnesses happen to live where there are competent physicians available to them that are able to treat its patients without the use of blood in connection with such treatment. Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses are faced with trying to find a hospital nearest where they live to where their loved ones can be transferred where quality medical care without the use of blood and blood products might be rendered.
It makes the Watchtower Society look bad.
There may be many things that make the Society look bad to some folks, but for the most part, people fault Jehovah's Witnesses for the decisions they make for themselves and their own children in their refusal to accept blood transfusions. Very few people fault the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society for the decisions that Jehovah's Witnesses make in this regard. You may one of the few people that faults the Society, but I can assure you, hardly anyone thinks the fault for the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take regarding blood transfusions lies with the Society.
Are you suggesting that there are no God-fearing doctors?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting, especially since hardly any of them even know that Jehovah is the true God, many of them believing instead that Jesus, who is God's son, is God, which is proof that there are hardly any God-fearing doctors. If these doctors were truly God-fearing, then one would think that they would want to please Him, to do His will, and "abstain ... from blood," but clearly they have no desire to please God, no desire to His will, because they are not "abstaining ... from blood," but using blood, which they should not be using in the way that they are using it by transfusing it. Anyone that disobeys God is someone that can honestly say that they know God.
@djeggnog wrote:
I mentioned alcohol, but why do you here refer to penicillin as 'a simple compound'?
@TD wrote:
The transfusion of blood and the consumption of blood are not equivalent acts because they both fall into the generic [category] of "Taking in blood"
@djeggnog wrote:
Did you come up with this particular "equivalency" on your own or did someone help you with it? Would you call taking penicillin orally consuming it, @TD? Would you consider penicillin being administered intravenously to be yet another way of consuming the drug? If taking penicillin orally and intravenously are equivalent acts, then how can you say that transfusing blood is somehow different than consuming it, @TD?
@TD wrote:
If transfusion is wrong for the same reason(s) that eating blood was wrong, that equivalency would be based on a concrete set of conditions that could be tested and proven.
@djeggnog wrote:
And with my illustration (above) about penicillin, I have proved the equivalency of transfusing blood and eating blood, since either orally or intravenously, the nutrients found in blood make their way into the bloodstream, even as does penicillin, whether administered orally or intravenously.
@TD wrote:
These exact same differences exist with blood transfusion, which is why analogies with simple compounds like alcohol or penicillin fail.
@djeggnog wrote:
What do you mean? It is red blood cells that take oxygen to the tissues of the human body. I don't see what an organ transplant has to do with blood transfusions, since, like any foreign tissue, blood transfusion is a tissue transplant and can suppress the immune system leading to immunologic reactions. I mentioned alcohol, but why do you here refer to penicillin as 'a simple compound'? What are these "physical and moral differences" that you say exists between someone that eats human tissue and the transplantation of human tissue as is done when one receives a blood transfusion? You're making no sense to me, @TD.
@TD wrote:
Penicillin is a simple compound....
You are really just repeating yourself, @TD. You wrote that "analogies with simple compounds like ... penicillin fail," but because I didn't understand your point, I said, "What do you mean?" I wasn't asking you whether Penicillin is a simple compound. What I was asking you with this question is to tell me how my analogy failed.
@TD wrote:
It could be inferred that all other uses of the human reproductive system were forbidden.... The resultant restriction would forbid all uses of the human reproductive system outside of marital intercourse for no other reason then that they unknown to the ancient world and therefore not listed as exceptions in the Bible. In-vitro fertilization would be lumped together with things like adultery, which is very, very different.
It's not so "very, very different" if God indicates in His word, the Bible, that He doesn't approve of in-vitro fertilizations.
It should be obvious that this line of reasoning is fallacious on many levels. In-vitro fertilization for a married couple is a preternatural use of the human reproductive system, but it is still a use in accordance with what Jehovah's Witnesses would consider the purpose of the human reproductive system to be. (i.e For married couples to produce children)
Nope.
Notice that I emphasized "married couple" --Sperm donor and egg donor would be husband and wife. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough)
I noticed.
Do you disagree that in-vitro fertilization for a married couple unable to conceive by normal means is a use of the human reproductive system in accordance with its purpose?
No, I do not disagree, but I disagreed with what you actually said:
(1) The resultant restriction would forbid all uses of the human reproductive system outside of marital intercourse for no other reason then that they unknown to the ancient world....
Whether artificial insemination was unknown to the ancient world is irrelevant.
(2) In-vitro fertilization would be lumped together with things like adultery, which is very, very different.
I don't agree that in-vitro fertilization and adultery are "very, very different" than eating blood and transfusing it.
(3) It should be obvious that this line of reasoning is fallacious on many levels.
You haven't proved that anything about my reasoning here about penicillin being consumed whether taken orally or intravenously to be deceiving or misleading, @TD. You can't, so you want to conflate your arguments and introduce a new one about polyheme having "the potential to do a lot of good for Jehovah's Witnesses" and being "physically and morally distinguishable from consuming human hemoglobin as a food." You came to learn all of this from "the information desk at Patterson"? Give me a break!
You were arguing that the imposition of restrictions on all uses of the human reproductive system outside of marital intercourse for no other reason is wrong. I don't agree. If a married couple should decide to use in-vitro fertilization, that would be a personal decision for them alone to decide. You went on to say, "It should be obvious that this line of reasoning is fallacious on many levels, but then decided to limit your argument to married couple, by writing, that [i]n-vitro fertilization for a married couple is a preternatural use of the human reproductive system.... but I cannot and do not agree with your initial premise that imposing restrictions on all uses of the human reproductive system outside of marital intercourse for no other reason is wrong.
It's like if someone were to be claiming to be giving me a list of prime numbers and they should give me the numbers "2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23 and 29," I'd be ok with this, for all of these numbers are prime, but were they to instead give me a list containing the numbers "2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 28 and 29, I'd have a problem since the number "28" is not a prime number. This is what you did when you introduced the topic of the human reproductive system, for you were not limiting yourself to prime numbers at all, but you threw into the list a "28" (marital intercourse being equivalent to "in-vitro fertilization for a married couple") in the context of your discussing prime numbers ("all uses of the human reproductive system outside of marital intercourse for no other reason" being equivalent to "in-vitro fertilization for a married couple").
Put another way: If you wish to claim that when you were made reference to in-vitro fertilization in your previous post that you only had in mind married couples, fine, but what we were discussing was the different between eating blood and transfusing it, which you claimed to be "very, very different" from "in-vitro fertilization and adultery." They are not different for if donor sperm should be given to someone artificially inseminated that is not married to the married sperm donor, then this would be adultery, and if anyone should take penicillin orally instead of intravenously, that penicillin has still been consumed, just as when donor blood is being consumed by the recipient of it, whether it should be ingested orally by drinking it or taken intravenously.
You want to conflate these arguments and that's fine, @TD, but I think it would be best if you go conflate them with someone else, because I won't allow you to think that you can get away with conflating them to make a very different point about prime numbers when the number "28" isn't one of them. You are free to think "the information desk at Patterson" to be masters of my faith or masters of the faith that Jehovah's Witnesses have in common, but Jehovah's Witnesses have only one Master, Jesus and we are of us are standing based on our faith in God and God alone.
I have never once needed to contact the Watchtower Educational Center in Patterson, NY, or the Hospital Information Services, which is still located at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY, because, like me, these folks are Jehovah's Witnesses, but I'll leave it to you to guess the number of times I've been contacted by either. It seems with your last post you now want to move the ball away from discussing in-vitro fertilization to talk about polyheme, which is not a blood fraction, but a blood product, and as such is unacceptable for use by Jehovah's Witnesses, despite what some Jehovah's Witnesses may have been willing to conscientiously accept as a blood substitute, but I would rather you stay on topic. I feel we have explored all of the arguments regarding blood fractions, so I think I'm going to be withdrawing from this thread now (unless someone should say something in it to compel me to post a response).
@djeggnog
-
cofty
Still pretending you have answered my point about Lev 11?
-
tec
I thought Cofty had something vital for you to respond to... mainly that the result of an Israelite willingly misusing blood was a day of uncleanness... not stoning to death; nor cutting someone off from their people. Just a day of uncleanness. Minor offense/minor consequence.
This inflated and one-size fits all 'punishment' though, is perhaps a topic all of its own.
Tammy
-
tec
Lol, seems Cofty and I are on the same page here :)
