by Splash 10 Replies latest watchtower medical
*** w50 5/15 p. 159 Letter ***
It is freely acknowledged that the fluid from a person of one type of blood may kill a person of another type of blood. If, now, you donated your blood, and your type of blood killed the person receiving the transfusion, would you be guilty of murder? Or would the doctor or nurse that administered the transfusion be guilty of the murder? Would you not be at least an accessory to a murder?
The quality of this reasoning made me smile.
Splash
Actually with lethal injections on occassions a nurse has refused to put the needle in the vein and the execution has been suspended...but i get your point. Shame those writters dont question the damage there writting has done to people...yea the pen is mightier than the sword....
I don't think funny or smile are the words, but we get your point.
To use an old phrase, they are very anal retentive.
Imagine that you donated a homemade soup (that you had made because you wanted to help those in need) to a soup kitchen that was desperately short on food.. Then someone came in who was starving, and asked for any soup but chicken due to a serious allergy.. But the people working there gave him your soup by accident, causing him to have an allergic reaction that killed him. (or those working there contaminated the food, or the chicken unbeknownst to you had bird flu etc..) Would you be responsible for their negligence, or for the harm you could not have foreseen? Would you ever donate soup again, or would you just leave people to starve..safe in the knowledge that you could never have any part in anyone's death by your donation?
Never mind that RH incompatibilities are NOT universal, that is one of the dumbest quotes I've ever read from the WT. Thanks for sharing.
Here's my variation:
If I cut a big branch off a tree and you steal it and you bludgeon your neighbor to death with it, how the hell is that my fault?
There are just so many "arguments" from the FDS that are truly Sofa King Stew Pit!
*** w50 5/15 p. 159 Letter ***
It is freely acknowledged that the fluid from a person of one type of blood may kill a person of another type of blood. If, now, you donated your blood, and your type of blood killed the person receiving the transfusion, would you be guilty of murder? Or would the doctor or nurse that administered the transfusion be guilty of the murder? Would you not be at least an accessory to a murder?
No court anywhere would make a blood donor legally responsible for the death of the recipient of a blood transfusion, let alone murder.
An exception might be in the case of HIV or Hepatitis, where an infected individual knowingly donates their tainted blood, hoping to create a maelstrom of chaos in the blood donor system. It is a criminal offense in Canada to knowingly attempt to infect a sexual partner with HIV or hepatitis, especially if you do not inform them of your positive STI status.
When you are hospitalized and in need of a blood transfusion, you are now required to sign a specific consent form stating that you understand the risks and benefits that have been explained to you by the physician. You assume liability for your choice to accept or refuse a blood transfusion. This does not absolve the hospital, its physicians or nurses from negligence or malpractice.
In the case of an emergency, Universal Donor blood (Type O Negative) is always given, as it is the safest to use when time is of the essence. A person who is unconscious and has no medical directive to the contrary (no blood card, DNR, etc.) is assumed to want their life saved by whatever means possible. That is a basic tenet of laws relating to medical care.
Donor blood goes through so much screening and preparation before it is administered to a patient - it is safer than it has ever been since transfusions have been used in medical practice. People who are HIV positive or who have a host of other medical conditions are denied the privilege of donating blood.
The statement in the WT from the 50s is clearly trying to scare people away from being blood donors, by making them feel that they would be "bloodguilty" for any negative outcome from the use of their blood.
The heights of stupidity knows no bounds when it comes to Watchtower reasoning.
Do they ever reflect on how ridiculous they appear. Turn the comment around and it is obvious to everyone but themselves that by the same token to deny giving blood causes people to die . How dumb can they get?
Hello Splash:
When anyone donates blood then it's out of your hands, and who knows what they do with it. Just like we pay our taxes and the government goes to war,
with our tax money, so are we responsible if someone dies in the war. No it's not our fault it's the Societies fault for forcing that law on us. It should be
an individuals choice whether they want blood or not.
It is relatively easy to scan all kinds of religious - and even nonreligious - publications from so many decades ago and find (unintentionally) funny quotes on a wide range of topics. Not trying to let the Watchtower off the hook for its hilarity, but reading through any religious propaganda from recent and less recent times can be mirth-provoking.
