I did my own calculation and came up with 29,000 extra JW deaths worldwide since 1961 as a result of refusing blood based on the New Zealand figure. But I used a very rough estimate for the average number of JWs worldwide over the period. Getting the exact figure would involve laboriously adding up the number of publishers for each year and dividing it by the number of years. Has anyone done that already? Plus there is really no way to know how representative the New Zealand figure is of JWs worldwide over the whole period, or just how strict the New Zealand figure is in attributing the 19 deaths to refusal of blood. Because the numbers are small, interpretation on that crucial point would have a huge impact on the overall calculation. It's not a very reliable way of producing an overall worldwide number over a period of decades.
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Ruby456
call me Stoopid but one glaring variable that would skew comparisons between New Zealand and Jehovahs witnesses would surely be that JW's have much much fewer babies - after all the NZ study was based on babies anaemia and blood transfusion wasn't it (according to crazyguy on page 1 anyway)
edit: lots of other variables too that would skew calcs when we start thinking along this line
Marvin, I call false equivalencies on your extrapolations regarding 250,000 deaths over blood transfusion. on the other hand it would be helpful to know how many JWs have died over the blood transfusion issue.
-
Ruby456
the problem with sensationalism is that what is actually wrong with the JW religion and lifestyle can become trivialized and seem too insignificant to fire up dissent.
-
cedars
At the risk of getting a black eye, I will enter the fray...
Personally I think it's unfortunate that a figure of 250,000 deaths has been put forward when it cannot be supported by any meaningful data. My approach to criticizing Watchtower is that they are giving us a treasure trove of material already without any need to resort to making stuff up, and damaging our argument in the process. Marvin's research is excellent and I have quoted it on JWsurvey with a link so that people can check out the data for themselves. Even if the figure is lower than 50,000, let's say more in the region of slimboyfat's 29,000, that is still a grotesque bodycount for any cult to lay claim to. You could imagine the international uproar if 29,000 were to simultaneously die tomorrow in a cult suicide pact. But spread the carnage over many decades and nobody bats an eyelid. This information NEEDS exposure, and we shouldn't be ashamed of challenging the public to think on this issue. If people like slimboyfat want to go ahead and do their own research they should go right ahead, and I'm sure Marvin would be the last person to stand in their way.
With all that said, I'm not sure the tone of this thread sits right with me. In the course of writing for JWsurvey I have made a fair number of mistakes requiring corrections or retractions, and if each of those mistakes had been gleefully leapt upon as subjects of debate on JWN as has happened here, it would have been soul destroying. Problems like this could be sorted out with a simple email, or twitter/facebook personal message, politely saying, "I noticed you gave this information, where did you get it from? Would you mind deleting the tweet/thread/comment if it is incorrect?" Instead, all too often the nuclear option of launching a JWN discussion and naming names is pursued first.
The Ex-JW community's infighting and readiness to point fingers, which I think is very much a product of our shared cult experience, is its achilles heel - and something of which I am frankly ashamed. Solidarity and kinship is not a commodity that is as abundant as it should be for a group taking on an adversary as wily and united as the Watchtower.
Cedars
-
Ruby456
cedars I take your point, we all make mistakes and I do apologise if my contribution comes accross as destroying solidarity. this was not my intention as I would really be interested in raising awareness about the issue of deaths over refusing blood transfusions.
-
cedars
No need to apologise Ruby, these are just general observations for everyone to hopefully take on board.
Cedars
-
70wksfyrs
I am with bigmac on this. In the UK it was all over the news when the 15yr old boy died while on the mino and was crushed by a wreckless driver. I remember vaguely when a mother lost her life in chilbirth for refusing blood, and think the twins were left motherless if I remember rightly. Anyone in the uk remember that one?
I am also with Cedars, we should be civil to one another for the sake of lurkers. Absulutely Cedars you tell em!
70wks...
-
bigmac
i apologise for writing the sentence "how stupid ARE jw's" yesterday. it was an alcohol fuelled knee jerk reaction. nathan natas was right.
i'm all for solidarity in the xj "brotherhood"-----my family continues to be torn apart by the shunning dictat.
-
Ruby456
thanks cedars.
I hope my posts above don't pour scorn on Marvin's calculatations as his methods are ligitimate. I was trying to to point out what can skew figures but these skewing factors would take so much research that it would bring us to a standstill. I certainly would not like that to happen.
-
brinjen
I guess one of the first questions to ask here is what percentage of the population is ever in a situation where they actually need a blood transfusion in the first place? If the issue never comes up... then the WTBTS' blood policy didn't actually affect you.
In any event... 250k doesn't sound right.