Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative 65 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Thank you, snare&racket.

    Rebel - from the correspondence I had, it was clear that Mr. Earnshaw is not a Jehovah's Witness but it wasn't clear if he actually knew that he was being used as the Society's poster boy for bloodless surgery. I am sorry - when I re-read what I wrote, I can see that I may be misrepresenting what Mr. Earnshaw said. And I wouldn't want to do that - he has been misrepresented enough by the Watchtower Society and the bloodless industry.

    "...using him as a sort of endorsement of a dangerous doctrine."

    Not only is it a dangerous doctrine, it is also a dangerous surgical procedure that they are endorsing. The society is quick to point to the successes of bloodless surgerry but they fail to mention the countless failures that bloodless surgery has encountered in its history. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have died, not only as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, but from the resulting experimental procedures tried on them. This claim is not hard to prove - the evidence can be found in published medical studies. As well, trials of bovine blood substitutes have been pulled because of high mortality rates in the subjects. And, of course, the JWs were in the clinical trial sample groups.

    The Jehovah's witnesses are certainly right about one thing - bloodless surgery would not have the success it has without a willing group of volunteers to test their technology on. The Jehovah's witnesses are the only group in the world that the medical industry can use as test subjects for bloodless surgery methods and actually test the extreme limit of their procedure. Without a 'religious' doctrine on their side, by law, they must intervene with all means possible before death claims their subject. With Jehovah's Witnesses, the subject can be taken right to death's door...and beyond. It is a situation that has been exploited in the quest for bloodless surgical methods and the holy grail of medicine - blood substitutes.

    And it is not only surgical procedures that are being tested on Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Babies are born all the time that are RH negative who would normally get an exchange transfusion.

    People suffer from hemophilia.

    There is so much confusion over the Society's stand on blood factions, etc when it is really simple.

    If you want to understand the Society's shifting stance on the 'blood issue', do some research into the history of the medical procedures concerning blood. The shifting stance of the Society dovetails very nicely into the required test groups needed by researchers in those fields of study.

    The Society's spin is that these procedures developed in response to the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.

    They are absolutely right. And it is horrifying.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses have made for a fine group of guinea pigs. Obediently following the directions from the Society concerning health care choices.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Rebel, I just clicked on the link in your previous post.

    I wasn't aware of your experience when I made the above post.

    I would like to read your book some day.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    I went for dinner with someone who knows Mr Earnshaw tonight, small world.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    As it turns out, having a blood transfusion is bad for you.
    Celebrating birthdays causes ulcers.
    Trick-or-treating on Halloween leads to razor blades in treats.
    Voting causes anxiety.
    Sex before marriage leads to greater divorce rates.
    Flag saluting causes broken right elbows.
    Missing Sunday meetings causes lightning to strike you on the forehead.
    Not being neutral in war causes the other side to kill you.

    Even if any of that were true, it is not the reasons given by Watchtower for their position on the matter. They so pile on. They might as well be saying that a smurf doll came to life in a Kingdom Hall or that border guards just slacked off in their work when a truckload of Watchtower literature was coming into some country.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    It sure is a small world, snare&racket.

    When I did the research on Mr. Earnshaw, I was impressed with his qualifications and his professional reputation. I was also impressed that he took the time to respond to my questions.

    If I was a medical professional of his stature, I think I may be somewhat annoyed that a religious cult has misrepresented something that I said. And not only that, to have the quote used to encourage people to refuse life saving procedures should be upsetting to a doctor who takes their Hippocrate oath seriously.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    This is always a red herring thrown by JW's. Even if blood 30 years from now is considered "bad medicine", it does not justify decades of abuse of power in enforcing it through shunning.

    Someone used the example of Isreal being told to circumcise on a certain day, and lo and behold that just happens to be the day the body produces vitamin K, and can clot blood easier. So we may not understand why something is forbidden, but the reason could be supplied as medical advancement is made.

    My response? (Close lower jaw). Number 1, circumcision is not a requirement. It is up to each person to decide at this point. Second, how do you know the Isrealites (who were the only ones seemingly cutting off foreskins), didn't kill a bunch of their children, and figure out if they waited....they didn't bleed to death?

    Also, this is either a biblical issue, or a medical one. It can't be both. You are either refusing (wether it is good or bad for your health in any scenario), because you believe God has directed you to or not. No invasive procedure is "ideal". A person today affected by a tainted batch of blood, is a tragedy. But if 10,000 people benefited from that same procedure and it even saved some lives, do you stop because it has that .01% chance of doing harm or having someone reject it? I certianly hope that one day blood is not neccesary anymore to treat patients. Much of this could even be solved by allowing use of your own blood stored for later. I should have saved my childs cord blood for stem cells in the future.

    The point is that YOU should be able to make that decision, without the threat of displeasing God, or communal shunning over your head. THEN is becomes a medical decision, and you can make the one that is right for you and your family.

    Her response......crickets.

  • Bugbear
    Bugbear

    problemaddict

    Qoute: Number 1, circumcision is not a requirement. It is up to each person to decide at this point. Second, how do you know the Isrealites (who were the only ones seemingly cutting off foreskins), didn't kill a bunch of their children, and figure out if they waited....they didn't bleed to death?

    It is not. They do that on young boys and the decissions are made by the parents. A young boy between 1 months or 1 year, cannot make his dec. by himself. Nor can a young JW, understand whats on.

    Bugberar

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    What the WT would never take anything out of context? Ha ha they are the masters of taking things out of context.

  • backformore
    backformore

    I just finished nursing school where I got to take part in many surgeries and talk to many many doctors and surgeons. When it comes to the idea of refusing blood transfusions they universally think that idea, and especially the people who promote it, is nuts and would have no problem accepting a transfusion if they ever needed it.

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    would like to read your book some day

    I think the book (technically a short story) is rather disturbing. You've been forewarned.

    I put it in writing because I think such atrocities should be documented.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit