250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Like HELL it doesn't!

  “Age very MUCH DOES effect whether patient(s) who participated in Believ's study had the legal right to make the decision to die.”

  Adamah,

  No one can be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

  READ MY LIPS…

  I DID NOT SAY age does not change whether a patients who participate in Beliaev’s study had the legal right to make the decision to die.

  I DID SAY age does not change the fact that in each case a JW patient with “severe anemia” objected to red cell transfusion and either lived or died.

  You don’t see the difference. Either that or you want to keep asserting your strawman.

  I know why my earlier choice to ignore you. I should have listened to myself then and not wasted more time responding to you.

  You’re a troll.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  the girl next door

  I have fully enjoyed this thread and the debate about specifics. There are strong arguments on both sides. I believe Marvin has presented a solid basis and reasoning for his extrapolations and find them adequate and compelling. I'm not clear on why they need to be degenerated or derided so vehemently, it is pointless in the end. Some people will understand and accept the findings and others will not for various reasons. The fact remains that thousands die from refusing life saving blood transfusions. That should be the focus and that should be the element of this saga that is exposed and developed.

  Everything can be debated and there will always be two camps or more for every subject. It does not behoove anyone to remain so obstinate in their stance that forward progress can't be achieved. Commonality should be aggregated and used to move forward. JWs are killing people with their blood policy. It's a fact. Any body of work that conscientiously and conservatively attempts to expose this fact should be applauded.

  Instead we have been bogged down by a benign post by a girl with very few twitter followers in the first place generating countless hours of debate that is hung up on numbers instead of the real straight forward issue that people are dying.
• 

  Simon

  The fact remains that thousands die from refusing life saving blood transfusions. That should be the focus and that should be the element of this saga that is exposed and developed.

  I agree. If you are going to give a number then it needs to be accurate and defendable but a big headline number is less effective than the story about real people.

  Take a cue from charity fundraising - they don't tell you how many millions of children are going to die because that is less effective then telling you about "little Kesha and how she is going to bed hungry".

  Making it about real people and real lives is many times more powerful than raw numbers, however dramatic the number may be.

  The times JW and blood make the major news stories is when it's about individuals, never about the numbers.
• 

  cofty

  Take a cue from charity fundraising - they don't tell you how many millions of children are going to die because that is less effective then telling you about "little Kesha and how she is going to bed hungry"

  This is an important point for anybody wanting to raise awareness. Its not the quantity of harm that makes people think but whether you can make them empathise with a particular case.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Fight as you will Marvin the majority of people who have been JWS for a short time or even a long time would not agree with that amount. (250,000)

  Professional statisticians would tear that Stat apart with ease and a lot of reasons why have already been stated on this thread.

  Stupidly stubborn is not a good character trait by the way.
• 

  Simon

  This is an important point for anybody wanting to raise awareness. Its not the quantity of harm that makes people think but whether you can make them empathise with a particular case.

  As cynical as it sounds, 'quality' beats quantity anyday when it comes to news and media and when they are looking for things to be newsworthy or not sometimes it does come down to how appealing the victim is or isn't.

  When I say "no one cares" it's a sad indictment of society but I think it has some truth to it.

  People don't 'care' about millions of preventable childr deaths every year. Sure, they would rather it not happen but they don't care enough to the point of being motivated enough to do something even sometimes down to making simple consumer choices.

  But show someone 'worthy' on TV with a name and a face and people will do anything and everything they can to help.

  It's just the way the world works, sadly.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  15-year-olds?

  When I read responses such as those from participant Adamah on this thread it amazes me the wrongheadedness folks can let themselves be entrapped.

  Adamah thinks it important to my conclusions that 15-year olds were included in the Beliaev study because 15-year olds are, under New Zealand law, unable to refuse treatment when refusal may threaten their life or health. This complaint from Adamah is nonsense. Here’s why:

  - For 15-year olds refusing blood to be a factor to increasing mortality in the Beliaev study means a 15-year-old would have had to die the result of refusing blood.

  According to Adamah, that can’t be the case, yet that is the only way including a 15-year-old in the study could inflate mortality!

  What Adamah apparently fails to consider is that otherwise healthy 15-year-olds can and do recover from an Hb level at 8 dL without red cell transfusion and Hb level at or below 8 dL was the threshold for inclusion in Beliaev’s study.

  There is documented instances of minors in New Zealand and elsewhere suffering Hb level at or lower than 8 dL with clinicians willing to honor requests of no red cell transfusion content to instead closely monitor for symptoms of inadequate tissue oxygenation. In these instances red cells were transfused against a patients/parents wish when symptoms became evident. Otherwise the patient was not given red cell transfusion with no adverse outcome the result.

  If we categorically assume that in New Zealand 15-year olds are unable to die the result of refusing blood then we are left with no alternative than no death of a 15-year-old in Beliaev’s study was the result of a 15-year-old refusing blood. Hence nothing in my extrapolation is inflated the result of 15-year-olds being in Beliaev’s study.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Fight as you will Marvin the majority of people who have been JWS for a short time or even a long time would not agree with that amount. (250,000)”

  NEWS FLASH!!!

  My extrapolation does not assert that 250,000 died refusing blood.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  adamah

  Marvin said-

  15-year-olds?

  Sigh....

  If you're now going to misrepresent my position (AKA straw-manning/quote-mining, another fave fallacious attack method you seemingly share with the Writing Dept at Bethel), then despite my prior vow, I'm going to have to correct you.

  Marvin, I've REPEATEDLY said, "16-18" y.o.'s

  NOT 15 y.o.'s.

  In NZ, a 15 y.o. is BELOW the age required for giving legal consent, and they, nor their parents, has the legal right to refuse blood IF it's a matter of life or death (since the Courts would intervene to protect them).

  On the other hand, a 16 y.o. in NZ CAN refuse blood of their own volition, EVEN IF it's a matter of life or death, since they've reached the age of majority (adulthood) in NZ. That wouldn't be the case in other parts of the World, where they'd have to be at least 18.

  THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE you've simply ignored. NOW, simply repeat the methodical exercise you gave above, but instead, use the example of a JW who is in the 16-18 y.o. range and IS allowed to refuse and die. They wouldn't be able to refuse Tx if they lived anywhere else BUT NZ.

  It seemingly is unknown how many SIXTEEN (16) to EIGHTEEN (18) year olds may have been included in Beliaev's study, which INFLATES the results, since they wouldn't be able to DIE of their own volition like they can in NZ, a factor that makes the study UNSUITABLE for extrapolation Worldwide, if the issue cannot be dealt with in a statistically-valid manner.

  Marvin, please don't quote any of my past attempts to aid you, as it will likely only be interpreted as trolling (trying to goad a response). If you want to ASK ME QUESTIONS to assist my help, then please send me a PM.

  Adam
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “In NZ, a 15 y.o. is BELOW the age required for giving legal consent, and they, nor their parents has the legal right to refuse blood, IF it's a matter of life or death (since the Courts would intervene). On the other hand, a 16 y.o. in NZ CAN refuse blood on their own, since they've reached the age of majority (adulthood), EVEN IF it's a life or death decision. THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE you've simply ignored.”

  Adamah,

  Alas! What you write above is pretty much exactly what I said above.

  Nuff said.

  “It seemingly is unknown how many SIXTEEN (16) to EIGHTEEN (18) year olds may have been included in Beliaev's study, which INFLATES the results, making them UNSUITABLE for extrapolation if the issue cannot be compensated for in a statistically-valid manner.”

  How many 16-18 year olds were included in the study is no more or less relevant than how many 26-28 year olds were in the study.

  “Marvin, please don't quote my past attempt to aid you,…”

  No problem there!

  You’re a troll.

  Marvin Shilmer