Blood Policy

by cyrano 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Francois

  I agree with dungbeetle that simply stopping the shunning over accepting blood transfusion is an easy "out" for the WTS. But I also agree with you that more is needed to really undo the utter tragedy that the past 50+ years of semiban-on-again-off-again-doctrinal-drag-a-position-through-the-mud policy has done to the average Witness's thinking on the subject. Most Witnesses that try to understand the policy end up whirling so fast in confusion that they screw themselves firmly into the dirt above their eyes, which leaves their head buried in the sands of deeper ignorance. Unfortunately that is where most give up studying the subject out of sheer frustration, and they are left where they are left--in the proverbial lurch.
• 

  MikeMusto

  SIM

  arly studies estimated the risk of erroneous administration of blood at 1 in 12,000 units, with resultant fatal AHTR at approximately 1 in 600,000 to 1 in 800,000 units transfused.6,7 According to a report from the New York State Department of Health (which requires reporting of transfusion errors), from 1990 to 1999, 1 in 19,000 RBC units were administered erroneously and 1 in 1,800,000 resulted in fatality.4

  
  i think that comes out to umm.... calculations....
  the total answer is =BROWN
• 

  moman

  Fran, too funny, but sad also.

  Damn old-fart G.B., what arrogant ASS-HOLES!
• 

  metatron

  I've said before, it really wouldn't be that hard to change
  if they spin it right.

  First, you publish a bunch of articles about willing, voluntary
  service. You talk about the example of Jesus giving up his
  life without coercion.

  Then, as months pass and this sinks in, the C.O. visits each
  body of elders locally and tells them to study this article
  carefully and bring it to the elders' meeting along with their
  Flock book.

  He then instructs them to draw a line thru the part of the
  Flock book that lists "failure to abstain from blood" as
  grounds for df'ing. He explains that no one should obey simply
  because the elders threaten anyone in a life or death situation.
  If someone sacrifices their life for the blood issue, it must be
  purely voluntary.

  In this way, they get rid of the issue without denying it.

  If they had any imagination, they could pull this off.

  metatron
• 

  seedy3

  Freddy said
  

  So many people lost their lives because of blood transfusions

  Hmmm if it is a loving provision, as I was told when I was in the borg, that jehobah has us abstain from blood, because of the dangers that go along with it, then why do Jdumbs drive cars, surly Jehobah would protect you from driving a car, as 100 times the number of people die from driving or riding in a car then do from blood transfusions. The benifits WAY out-weigh the dangers.

  Seedy
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Freddie,

  I know a dickhead when I see one

  I just saw one.

  Freddie,

  You said,

  So many people lost their lives because of blood transfusions.

  Fred, truth be told PERCENTAGE WISE MANY MORE people die because they REJECT/DON'T RECIEVE a Transfusion than because OF a transfusion.

  
  YERUSALYIM
  "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
  [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
• 

  Axelspeed

  "don't ask, don't tell", "a line thru the part of the
  Flock book that lists "failure to abstain from blood" as
  grounds for df'ing". (by the way, I do enjoy reading you guys posts) In this case, I beg to differ. No disrespect to other issues, but I really think this will be the big issue.

  Even if one has not lost a loved one most will look at the "directive card", take a good look at their kids, and wonder "what if" and realize how they were just one accident away from perhaps sacrificing their children over vaccilating policy that was once presented vehemently as dogma and in fact fought tooth and nail for in the courts...against the wishes of family in many cases.
• 

  simwitness

  MikeMusto, you quoted:

  arly studies estimated the risk of erroneous administration of blood at 1 in 12,000 units, with resultant fatal AHTR at approximately 1 in 600,000 to 1 in 800,000 units transfused.6,7 According to a report from the New York State Department of Health (which requires reporting of transfusion errors), from 1990 to 1999, 1 in 19,000 RBC units were administered erroneously and 1 in 1,800,000 resulted in fatality.4

  (I will take this quote at face value, since you did not quote the source)

  Now, If I read this correctly, the odds are pretty darn good that a blood transfusion, EVEN IF AN ERROR OCCURS, will NOT kill you.

  Now, answer me this, those that believe that God "commands us" to abstain from blood upon penalty of death...

  If you honestly believe that he has a hand in everyday affairs, would he ALLOW such success from it? If he truly wanted us to "abstain from blood" wouldn't it have been easier to allow medical science to fail each and every time they attempted to make it work?

  IMHO, it is the simple fact that it succeeds so well that it must be a "miracle" (for lack of a better term) from God himself.

  I think the WTBS already has an easy way out. All they have to do is A)some of the ideas that have already been posted
  and/or
  B)follow that "up to the individuals concience" stuff they post on their website.

  ' nuf said.

  Thanks to all.

  (FredHall, still lookin in the mirror????)
• 

  dungbeetle

  >If they'd do a don't ask, don't tell I wouldn't be satisfied. I would want from today forward that blood not be mentioned again in ANY publication - including the KM publication. Not a word.<

  Amen to that. NOT ANOTHER WORD...
• 

  MikeMusto

  Sim:

  'nuf said

  Are you in a Posse?

  Relax, you asked for a non WTS quote and I delivered. You def. need
  to chill. I think a night at Centro-Fly would be a good starter for you.