To deal with the infusion of blood puts another demand on the body, and if it is done as a routine, liability-avoidance-and often money-making / enhanced billing procedure rather than a real emergency measure, it is going to be a hindrance rather than help to healing.
"Jehovah's Witnesses do better after surgery without transfusion" - Article (July 3, 2012)
by Da.Furious 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
OnTheWayOut
Deep into the data (file:///C:/Users/jerry3620/Downloads/iiq120038_1154_1160.pdf starting at very bottom of page 1158) is this:
"Finally, Witnesses who came to our center and were accepted by our surgeons likely represent a select group who might have been expected by their physicians to have better outcomes."
In other words, due to the lifestyle of many of these particular Witnesses, factored in with their chances of survival of bloodless surgery, a doctor may have referred them to this Cleveland study. And those that were too far gone for bloodless surgery never found out about the study. I mean, no matter what the point they are trying to prove, an obese patient way past the time they should have had surgery was probably not recommended to go under the knife. Surgery is expensive and any hospital would not want to waste time and money on those that will definitely die on the table.
Sure, if bloodless surgery can be done safely, it is a good thing. But the Watchtower ties the doctors' hands on options. Don't tie your doctors' hands like that. Learn all you can about your odds and choices.
-
Marvin Shilmer
I've read the article. It asserts that treatment according to Watchtower policy does not pose an increased risk FOR THE SPECIFIC PATIENT PRESENTATIONS REVIEWED BY THE AUTHORS of this study.
There is such a thing as bleeding to death. Current Watchtower policy would have a JW succumb to death rather than prevent that death by transfusion of blood and products rendered from blood on its forbidden list (red cells, white cells, platelets and certain plasma products such as FFP). This study does not dispute that fact.
See: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/stark-reality-facing-jehovahs-witnesses.html
And: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-than-50000-dead.html
Preventable death due to Watchtower's blood doctrine is well documented! Very well documented!!!
-
jgnat
nugget, there was a woman who regularly attended my own church who was bent over at the waist, nearly 90 degrees. It was a significant handicap. She was very faithful, often going up for prayer looking for a miraculous healing.
Talking to her after service one day, I was horrified to find out that there is a surgery to correct this handicap! This woman preferred to have God do it.
-
OUTLAW
Jehovah's Witnesses do better after surgery without transfusion"
................Not Complaining after Surgery isn`t the Same as Doing Better..
...........................
...................................................................................................
...OUTLAW -
steve2
The context shows that a highly select group of "referred on" JWs was compared with a wider, general population sample, included in the latter undoubtedly untold numbers whose likelihood of survival would have been low with or without transfusions.
In the parlance of well-designed comparative heatlh-outcome research, these 2 samples likely contained important health variables that were not "held constant" (that is, matched).
Sometimes researchers openly acknowlege these sorts of "limitations" and suggest the research design be improved in this regard for further investigation.
I'd assume the researchers would make it clear in their Discussion and Recommendations for further research that the outcomes are specific for planned heart surgery and do not have relevance for other types of surgery and, importantly, for situations in which blood-volume loss is significant. That type of comparative research would reach pretty damning conclusions about the consequences of deliberate blood-transfusion refusal.
-
WTWizard
I do agree that blood transfusions, like any other major medical procedure, carries risks. But, there is a time when the risk carried by not doing it exceeds the risk carried by the transfusions. And like any other medication, blood use should be kept to a reasonable minimum. Sloppy procedures usually require more blood (and are more likely to cause needless damage) than carefully executed ones. It is worthwhile if you can get a situation that usually requires three units of blood down to one unit. But, an absolute ban is not appropriate, and this especially if the condition is the result of trauma where drugs and surgery are the appropriate treatment.
Or, better, if they could avoid the problem in the first place. Skipping the boasting sessions and field circus could skip driving while tired, and you might even skip the accident that caused the blood need in the first place. This, as a bonus, would cause someone else to skip an accident that could put them in the hospital, too.
-
smiddy
Point taken OUTLAW , sometimes in your face moments are what we need .
smiddy
-
hamsterbait
Depends on the overall physical state of the witless.
I personally knew a witness who died after bloodless heart surgery. Before my cancer surgery I was in such dire state the anaesthetist said I was in trouble, and surgery could not go ahead without it. I was not prepared to throw my life on the table like a cheap plastic gambling chip - especially as I know the Gibbering Baddies could have voted that Jehoobie sock puppet had changed his ever changing mind 6 months previously.
-
little_Socrates
Of course taking sombodies elses bodily fluids and pumping them into your body isn't really "good" for you. Often your body treats the blood as a foreign pathogen. Blood transfusions can take weeks or months to recover from. Also if the surgeon knows you will refuse blood he/she will be much more carefull with your surgery.
On the other hand... if you need a transfusion you need a transfusion.
...OUTLAW