by Marvin Shilmer 19 Replies latest jw friends
freedom: Not surprising. In this, dubs are like Catholics who practice birth control.
I am convinced the WT's fluid blood policy over the past couple of decades was initiated on purpose so they could muddy the waters enough that in time, the whole blood transfusion controversy would no longer be an issue. That way, the WTS could avoid owning their huge mistake and potentially paying off major lawsuits. Seems to be working for them.
My daughter is a specialist childrens' nurse and in every situation without exception the parents have accepted blood transfusions for their babies. They say do it but don't tell me.
I realize that this is only a small example but that said in all the time that she has been nursing there hasn't been anyone who refused a blood transfusion for their child when it was lifesaving.
I am convinced the WT's fluid blood policy over the past couple of decades was initiated on purpose so they could muddy the waters enough that in time, the whole blood transfusion controversy would no longer be an issue. That way, the WTS could avoid owning their huge mistake and potentially paying off major lawsuits. Seems to be working for them.
I think you are exactly right about this.
There seems to be a strong parallel with the status of someone claiming "conscientous objector" draft status - if you went to prison over this, then this was because of your own conscience - we didn't tell you what to do.
The same thing will certainly be claimed for anyone who had died in the past over a blood transfusion refusal.
Both lies, but they have lied in the past. Remember, they never misled anybody about 1975, either.
He pointed out that this included leaders of the church (e.g. Elders).
I belive the GB family memebers have faced that blood transfusion crisis, too. The difference is, nobody is going to challenge their decisions of conscience.
It is my unerstanding that not all GB members voted for the blood ban, it won by just one vote.
So that means several GB members beleive transfusions are A-OK.
Do you think those GB member obstain when their life is at risk?
Doubt it
Willyloman writes:
“What most dubs don't know is that the WTS' "rules" on blood are in a state of constant change and subject to a good deal of personal interpretation.”
Boy you got that right! Terms such as “current therapy” are large enough to drive a Mack truck through, as my colleague puts it.[1]
Marvin Shilmer
_______________
References:
1. “current therapy” is one of many highly subjective terms used by Watchtower’s blood doctrine and as such it is for all practical purposes a mechanism to rationalize accepting some otherwise forbidden blood therapy. The term is found in the October 15, 2000 Watchtower issue on page 31 and again in the December 15, 2000 issue on page 30.
James Woods : "I assume this means 80% of all young witnesses who actually need a blood transfusion."
Marvin Shilmer : Yes. That is what my article says supported by Dr. Benson's presentation of data.
This is an interesting study but to conclude that "80% of all young witnesses" would accept blood transfusions based on a sample of six youths at one hospital has no credibility at all.
Six (10.3%) of the 58 Jehovah's Witness patients in our study accepted blood transfusions or, for minors, their parents accepted transfusions for them.
Of the seven Jehovah's Witness patients who were 21 years of age or younger, five accepted blood transfusions, one did not require blood, and one refused blood (Table 2).
Table 2. All Jehovah's Witness Oncology Patients 21 Years of Age or Younger*
______________________________________________________________________________
Age Sex Diagnosis Transfusion Accepted 1 M Acute lymphocytic leukemia Yes 19 M Sarcoma Yes 3 M Wilm's Tumor Yes 21 M Gastric cancer ** 17 M Acute lymphocytic leukemia Yes 21 F Sarcoma Yes 4 F Wilm's Tumor No * Treated at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
from October 1986 through February 1994.** No transfusions required.
Discussion
Many of the treatment modalities used for oncology patients result in marrow suppression or in the loss of red blood cells. Without blood component support, patients may suffer adverse consequences. Of the 58 Jehovah's Witness oncology patients in this study, one suffered acute adverse effects, one patient died, and 10 may have had worsened prognoses due to abbreviated treatments.
While the median age of this total group of patients was 54 years, the median age of the group who received transfusions was 18 years. Of the six patients under age 22 who required transfusions, five (83%) received transfusions. Therefore, while most adult Jehovah's Witness patients were unwilling to accept blood for themselves, most Jehovah's Witness parents permitted transfusions for their minor children, and many of the young adult patients also were willing to accept transfusions forthemselves.
Earnest writes:
“This is an interesting study but to conclude that "80% of all young witnesses" would accept blood transfusions based on a sample of six youths at one hospital has no credibility at all.”
I put it more accurately in my article by writing:
“Based on Dr. Benson’s survey of young Witness patients, at least 80% (5 out of 6) accept “allogeneic red blood cell transfusions” when needed or else their Witness parents accept it on their behalf and without need of court-order.”
The blog article intends to compare what Watchtower asserts of young Witnesses compared to what a third-party says of young Witnesses. One disputes the other.
For better information on the state of conviction held by the greater Witness community regarding Watchtower’s blood doctrine, I recommend readers to documentation found in the article Blood — How Resolute? available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/blood-how-resolute.html
Marvin Shilmer
Satan was right when he said: And everything a man has, he will give it to save his own skin. It's not a bad thing necessarily, it's merely an animal thing - survival is your prime instinct. If you attempt to commit suicide by hanging and you don't break your neck or restrain yourself, you will unconsciously attempt to save yourself, same goes for drowning and is also the reason baby's can swim.
Put yourself in the situation - you or your kid has to undergo an operation and there are 2 choices, certain death imposed by people that can't even explain their doctrines themselves or a chance of survival based on sound, proven science. Blood transfusion is not always the answer but these days (DISCLAIMER: I work in the medical research field but I am not a licensed medical professional) most doctor's will try to exhaust any viable other option especially if their client asks for it however doctor's do not want you to die nor are they agents/worshippers of Satan so if they say it's your last option, you should believe them and make a choice accordingly.
Anony Mous : Satan was right when he said: And everything a man has, he will give it to save his own skin.
Anony Mous, a closer reading of the survey would reveal that during the seven-year period in which the survey took place only six of the 58 oncology patients who were Jehovah's Witnesses accepted blood transfusions and of those six, three were under the age of five. One patient died.
