"Witness Patients Often Do Better" - Erm......

by snare&racket 66 Replies latest jw friends

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Took a peek at the new JW.org and soon got angry :(

    "Witness Patients Often Do Better!"

    How was I that dumb, are people that dumb? There is NO alternative to blood.

    If there was we would not be desperate for blood donations.

    It is true that there are alternatives for 'blood volume' in order to keep your blood pressure up, i.e. replace the volume of blood that has been lost by a fluid the body does not reject. However this replacement fluid/plasma etc can't do the work of blood, that is to transport oxygen to the cells of the body. Within minutes, cells start to die without this oxygen.

    Imagine a pump and a circuit of pipes. The pump has a setting to maintain a certain pressure. Now add a fluid to the system and turn it on.

    If a pipe is cut and the fluid leaks out, the pump will try to maintain pressure by pumping faster and faster, when all the fluid is gone it will lead to the pump breaking, or heart failure. So when blood alternatives are given they do nothing more than maintain pressure in the system. Also remember that there is still a leak, so lots of it will leak out. If blood is not used (out of a hospital-it needs to be kept frozen and lab tested for correct type) and someone is only given fluid replacment, they will die as the cells of the body recieve no oxygen and the whole circuit is replaced with a fluid unable to transport oxygen. Even the pump (heart) needs that oxygen to work.

    Eletive surgery is not as risky for blood loss than for example trauma, blood loss can be prevented, fixed and replaced so long as there has not been too much blood loss. However, someone in a road traffic accident with major blood loss, needs blood replacment. Cells will die within minutes without oxygen.

    So when the WT publish such pages as this :

    "Witness Patients Often Do Better"

    http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/pacific/australia/witness-patients-do-better/

    They are being far from reasonable or honest. The people they are talking about evidently DID NOT NEED BLOOD. They would have died for not having it. This is not a JW success story, it is a JW ignorance story. They are not bringing the world of medicine or science new news, giving blood is dangerous, as dangerous as giving a medication. There are risks and side effects. Doctors that give it freely do so out of concern, but medicine needs to be more constrained yes! However, to even imply that it is safer to not have blood is ridiculous. If you need it, you need it or you will die! How and when a doctor is able to judge when to give blood is easy after the fact! The uneducated 7 lemons in Brooklyn certainly are clueless to the reality of the situation within an operating theatre. Nevermind the basic human biology. If you have lost more blood than your body needs to survive, then you need blood. The body takes a few days (min) to replace blood loss, so it has to come from an outside source. There is more than this to consider however, the state and age of the patient may require transfusion as a prophylaxis.

    So discussing intricate cardiac surgery where they are manipulating arteries the width of small drinking straws (with decades of training) and leaving the obvious unspoken issue of major blood loss from trauma or other blood issues such as blood cancers where transfusion is vital, they are being very irresponsible.

    Also, in addition to this is the fact that the professor clearly stated "Witnesses were given better treatment by doctors trying to preserve their blood." and this is no small matter. By demanding such treatment doctors are forced to give JW's more time, attention and focus. In an ideal world this would be done for all, but the cake can only be sliced so many times.

    JW's will see that page as "Saying no to blood is a safer option!".... I hope the person that wrote it can carry that on their conscience, I certainly could not.

    Snare x

  • designs
    designs

    Both of my JW parents died in Hospitals so better than what.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Designs, I can't imagine a worse testament to the consequences of the WT blood policy. There is a lot of blood on their hands.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Group A: JW's saying no to blood, undergoing cardiac surgery (assumed that all JW's said no to blood)

    Groub B: A portion of people that underwent cardiac surgery but required blood during the procedure.

    Group C: A portion of people that underwent cardiac surgery but required no blood during the procedure.

    The professor just made a comment about the comparison of Group A and B. It was not rocket science...Group A did better than group B in terms of complications and outcome. Well Duh !!! Group B patients needed blood.... i.e. underwent complications. Also it was admitted that group A received better care due to the higher risks of blood loss. They are not at all comparable in any truly scientfic manner.

    This is merely a professor attempting to encourage less blood use (due to side effects and $$$) and more care in theatres. Both are fair points. I would even say the evidence here supports that view that blood can be avoided. However for those that need it, they will die without it. Group C is evidence that these same surgeons did not give everyone blood in these circumstances.

    Blood is not optional if you need it.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Designs, they truly are blood guilty and they know it!

  • gorgia
    gorgia

    Snare&Racket,

    Thank you for your post, it is very clever. My grandfather (in his 70's) was dying of blood cancer and put off having a blood transfusion for years - but in the end he was so frightened of dying he accepted one. He was disf'd.

    gorgia

  • finally awake
    finally awake

    Every patient would be better off if all the doctors and nurses were super careful all the time and every effort was made to prevent complications. However, there are situations that absolutely require a blood transfusion for the patient to survive and it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    Not enough people realize or accept that the JW blood policy is designed to kill innocent people. The quicker the EXJW community accepts this the quicker we can rid this scum from our lands.

    16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood ,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

    This propaganda is disgusting:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mmZPZ3-Mg

    They have the audacity to claim they help the medical community and save lives. Despicable.

    -Sab

  • label licker
    label licker

    Morning everyone,

    I can understand your pain for my brother, Timothy, had died at eleven iin the 70's. He had insephelitus of the brain and near the end they had to tube feed him. The tube went too far and punctured a hole into the stomach. The hospital required he get a transfusion and the parents said no. He died shortly after. Too bad they hadn't had that new form that came out in December 2012 for minors needing blood. A sisters kid needed blood and the liason committee told her go ahead and let them have the child if it means the courts not interferring. If I ever see that brother I will ask him how does his conscience make him feel especially when his belief goes against whole blood transfusions. Doesn't he feel blood guilty?

    Funny how it all boils down to courtfees$$$$ and a childs life. You see in the eyes of the watchtower who's worth more$$$$$$$$$$$

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Sabatious, with the greatest respect, this is a legitimate discussion about real people and real life and death situations. Your conspiracy scenario's are unwelcome and unhelpful.

    I am neither a christian or a believer in god anymore. Through ardent study and reasoning, this is my personal conclusion. However for those that wish to debate the issue of blood biblically. Jesus clearly broke the law of the sabbath, punishable by death. He defended himself not by saying that he was the new law or that there was a new law etc, he defended his actions of healing a man by stating the obvious, life is more valuble than law, for the law is there for the very life of its followers. He even condoned the saving of lambs from a well, even at the cost of the law that was punishable by death.

    Jesus also ate corn on the sabbath, having picked it from the field, this was evidence of life and sustenance being greater than law. For this action was punishable by death.

    The good samaritan was a story about life being more valuble than law. The JW's as usual missed the point, it was a sin to touch a dead body, people were stepping over the inured man, thinking he was dead. The samaritan was not bound by such law and did the right thing. The law is not as valuble as life, was once more repeated here.

    Who are the 8 men in Brooklyn to dictate what can be used or not used by an individual. It is none of their business and it is about time they said so. Even the current secret elders manual advocates chaparones at hospitals in some scenarios where transfusion is a possibility. The elder that does this role, be he a painter, plumber, office worker, cleaner etc in his day to day life, has no place to be there. He certainly is not there as a shepherd.

    Snare

    P.s Sab, please edit your post.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit