"bad blood" German TV

by inbetween 11 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  inbetween

  http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Reportage-Dokumentation/B%C3%B6ses-Blut-Kehrtwende-in-der-Intensivm/Das-Erste/Video?documentId=24921128&bcastId=799280

  for those who understand German (some parts are in English)

  Basically the german public TV station aired last monday a program about the danger of blood transfusions and a needed change of habits of hospitals and doctors, also about the resistance of giovernments and blood banks, touching even on financial interests. One Ameriacn doctor interviewed here, I think was even in the blood video of the org.

  Many recent studies indicate strongly the high risk of transfusions and the fact, that they are often given unnecessary.

  It goes viral among German witnesses right now, and comments will be coming like "Jehovah knows the best for us", "Obeying the GB for their wise direction is always beneficial for us" etc....
• 

  prologos

  Interesting points I did not know: even your own blood, if stored up to 40 days deterioates and the residue triggeres an immune reaction, and because the body battles any foreign substance, it has to fight on two fronts if there is a threatened infection. Jws were not mentioned, but other "interested"parties for different reasons.

  Blood is only justified if your fluid loss is really great, and then it saves lives. The subtitles made it understandable, which all videos had it.
• 

  cofty

  When JWs argue that there are dangers associated with blood transufsions they are totally missing the point.

  Jumping out of a window is dangerous. If my bedroom is on fire and the door is blocked it makes sense to jump.

  They refuse blood even, when it is the only way to save the life of their child, for reasons of superstitious religious dogma...
• 

  inbetween

  good illustration cofty, totally agree

  however, regardless of pro or con witnesses, the question in light of recent studies is:

  Did the blood doctrine of JW cause more damage or more good ?

  There are surley may thta died because of refusing blood, there are others however, who minimized the danger of sideeffects, especially by refusing blood transfusions, when they were not really necessary, which even in the long run, prevented death, while others who took blood, eventually died from those sideeffects.

  Or as a simple example with fictious numbers: Lets say 1000 witnesse died, while they could have lived taking blood.

  on the other hand lets say 20000 witnesses refused blood (because of religious reasons) when it was not really necessary, by using alternatives. The probability to develop some certain life threating conditions after surgery was lets say only 10% compared to 20% of those, who took blood.

  Which means 10% of those 20000 , or 2000, surivived by not taking blood.

  So because of blood doctrine we have 1000 dying, and 2000 lives saved.

  Don`t get me wrong, I think from a religious standpoint the blood doctrine is heavily flawed, but the question is, if it was overall really more harmful than beneficial ?
• 

  Island Man

  Great illustration Cofty.
• 

  blondie

  *** w91 6/15 p. 12 par. 19 Saving Life With Blood—How? ***

  Jehovah’s Witnesses have long refused blood transfusions, not primarily because of the health dangers, but because of obedience to God’s law on blood. (Acts 15:28, 29)

  So if transfusions became medically safe, jws could still not have one.
• 

  prologos

  The film, (if google could tranlate the captions) argues not that blodd transfusions should not be used, even in emergencies, but shows the unneccesry side-effects, avoidables aftereffects from it's use as a tonic. The power of the blood lobby and how the health industry begins to wake up to the situation.

  blondie good point, -" IF transfusion were safe-", totally safe, because they are not, as the fim shows.
• 

  blondie

  Not yet anyway, the medical field is improving every year...and has done so in the field of blood transfusions.

  jws are allowed to use hemoglobin-based products which some are made with human blood. The point that I hoped the quote showed it was not a matter of being medically unsafe but that even using blood that was safe was wrong scripturally.
• 

  prologos

  The medical field improved every year, before our time blood-letting ws all the rage. ingenious many needle implements were devised .

  The film laid bare little publised side effects, obstacles that are similar to other organ transplants.

  They briefly touched on the difficulties to creare a truly efficient artificial blood substitute.

  we, with TTATT are nor affected with the faith-based refusal.
• 

  blondie

  The point is that the WTS policy is that it is unscriptural to use blood in transfusions not a case of being unsafe medically. That is why the quote above says

  *** w91 6/15 p. 12 par. 19 Saving Life With Blood—How? ***

  Jehovah’s Witnesses have long refused blood transfusions,

  not primarily because of the health dangers,

  but

  because of obedience to God’s law on blood . (Acts 15:28, 29)