Greg posts on Channel C quite a bit.
here's the link
Calgary Blood Case Effectively Over - We Won!
by AlanF 63 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
thewiz
first, forgive me for not covering every particaple and making my post as long and drawn out and boring (not that it is already) as possible. i figure people coming here don't have to have posted the entire history of the universe before general conclusions can be drawn.
hawkaw
everything starts with trials. sure there are risks involved, there are plenty of risks involved for taking blood too. Tell that to the people who got hepatitis (like the pope) and to others who got AIDS from transfusions. ask them whether it was worth the risk, ask them whether their dr.'s kept them informed on the risks of accepting a transfusion. those forms people sign (sometimes, of course they may not be conscious) are so general and standard that they don't even bother reading them (much like when the recite the "our father" -it's all bulls#$% to them, a formality). the hospital does it to protect itself from legal action.
so anyone having a transplant is an asshole? because they desperately seek out a remady that will prolong their life? you make it seem like people willing to take that risk are taking a foolish stupid gamble.
i gamble everytime i get in my car and drive to work.
so if i recommended that my child have have a transfusion and they end up with hepatitis or AIDS how is that NOT child abuse. if it works for you are your end, then shouldn't it work for me?
jdubs dont' take blood principly because of religous beliefs not because of the risks involved, as i am sure you are aware.
so go worship your dr.'s from harvard or yale, their word to you, is supreme. they never error. one problem I find that many of the "educated" have is, they don't like a little lowly peon telling them their business.
go tell it to Norman Cousins and other natural healers. it's simply an alternative, a course od action that any deciding person has at their disposal.
dungbettle
the top three stupist things i have every heard have been on these posts, yours is the third. suggesting that a mother, excuse me, a jbub mother, will sacrifice her child to get sympathy. what, do all jdubs suffer from munchausen syndrome by proxy?
and i didn't know it was only jdubs who got an avalance of sympathy when a child dies. i thought everybody did that?
but you are qualified?
and "if" my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
I merely suggested alternatives to blood therapy and to keep options open.
another thing, if a dr. told you they ONLY way for you to continue living was/is to get a heart transplant what would you say back to that dr? and you talk about the jdubs being dogmatic.
-
hawkaw
Ahhh trying to shift the arguement and make OPINIONS instead of FACTS.
The intent is that ALL people should make FULLY informed decisions based on the FACTS.
You have provided OPINIONS that when tested with the scientific evidence are completely FALSE.
As stated before JWs are more than happy to go have a heart transplant and the risks are enormous that they could die. The possiblitity that something could go wrong is in the percent range!!! Its also worth noting that these heart and other transplants carry the same risks of hepC and AIDs but the JWs have no problem with the treatment. But when it comes to CERTAIN blood transfusions banned by the society that have only a 1:1,000,000 chance of a problem the JWs refuse them. And yet JWs will take other human and animal blood products that have the same risks.
If you actually look at the FACTS, JWs DO NOT take CERTAIN blood transfusions and DO TAKE OTHER BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS because the "mother corporation" says so and NOT for religious reasons.
hawk
Edited by - hawkaw on 27 June 2002 8:32:6
-
Fredhall
Hawkaw,
I come to believe that you are Vampire Bat