This is why I don't like transfusions....... (page 3)

ItsJustlittleoldme

And I have never heard the Society complain about the religious ramifications of eating 'rare' steak. What does Watchtower think that red liguid is----GRAPE JUICE..???

it's only a fraction of a fraction of the blood of the animal, so it is ok

Ok, so if you were to have a life-saving operation including blood and it just so happened that the blood was supposed to be destroyed becos of the infection of Hep C and this blood was administered to you in the op, yer not gunna be pissed?

Apart from having a difficult recovery, you'd be infected with a potentially fatal disease. Now tell me you wouldn't sue the frigging hospital for giving you this 'life-saving' technique? And then bitch about it the rest of your life. Yeah.....sure....you wouldn't!

BeautifulGarbage

Oh, I would sue the pants off everyone involved, Violet.

Still, you are missing the point.

It's the risk of being infected in the first place placed against the risk of dying.

Let's say...risk of being infected with Hep C- less than 1%

weighed against the risk of dying if refused blood with needed-100%

If someone, who is fully (not just from WTS crap) informed, AND NOT A CHILD, refuses, well go ahead, die.

Andee

dungbeetle

People just don't get it.

Do a search through Violet-anus' threads; ANYONE who posts on HIS threads and disagrees with HIM (these types are almost always male) is going to get personally attacked.

So why do people keep coming back for more and more and more? I cannot hazard a guess.

Violet-anus is doing a very bad job of connecting the dots.

There is very little, if any, coorelation between the acceptance of blood transfusions and the safety of the blood supply. If this is a JW issue then the safety of blood supply has nothing to do with anything, just as the earlier poster brought out.

If it is totally about safety, then JW's need to ban driving cars, crossing the street, and for that matter holding their meetings at night.

If it is about personal choice, then JW need to eliminate the shunning/expulsion, or in the alternative initiate a don't ask/don't tell policy.

Another red herring gone astray...

COMF

I bet you get really confused at stoplights, don't you, Violet.

dungbeetle

bwahahahahaha at comf

I wish I could think on my feet like that.

((((((((( comf ))))))))))))))

VioletAnai

I see the dung hasn't stopped making assumptions.

I get the point Beautiful Garbage, PERSONALLY, I wouldn't take it becos of the risk involved. An operation can pretty much be done without blood anyway, just as long as the volumes are kept up. That is a safer method than risking infection from blood.

So in the end, you may have recovered from a life-threatening op, but for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, you now have to deal with Hep C....that sucks.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Hi Violet,

Ok, so if you were to have a life-saving operation including blood and it just so happened that the blood was supposed to be destroyed becos of the infection of Hep C and this blood was administered to you in the op, yer not gunna be pissed?
Apart from having a difficult recovery, you'd be infected with a potentially fatal disease. Now tell me you wouldn't sue the frigging hospital for giving you this 'life-saving' technique? And then bitch about it the rest of your life. Yeah.....sure....you wouldn't!

I don't think anyone here is arguing your right to choose NOT to have a blood transfusion because of the possibility of infection. That is your god-given right to refuse something if you don't want it.. Me, personally I don't like and don't wear seat belts, although I know statistically I'm going to be safer in an accident if I wear one that I would be without one. But the belt makes me feel 'trapped', so I choose NOT to wear one.

I made up my own mind NOT to wear a seat belt, and I do not impose my view on anyone else. If they are in a car with me, it is their choice to wear or not wear their seat belt. (I, do, however, insist that children are placed in child seats for their safety).

So, I applaud your decision NOT to take blood because of the small chance that you can become infected with some diesese, as I have no intention of wearing seat belts... (And no-one has made that choice for me, it was my choice, of my own free will to do so)

I do have one question, however, and this will tell me what your underlying motive is for refusing a blood transfusion, so answer honestly please:

If the Governing Body changed their interpretation of the scriptures to read that blood transfusions were now acceptable in the eye of god, and that you were allowed to have a blood transusion, no disiplinary action would be taken against anyone who accepted a blood transfusion, and no-one would shun or mark you for doing so in good conscience, would you still refuse a blood transfusion on the grounds that you can catch a diesese from a blood transfusion?

Let's take this one step further, let's say the GB announce that not only are blood transfusions ok, but as a matter of a good christian, you MUST do everything possible to save a christian life, and so in the same vein of not being allowed to smoke because it hurts/kills, refusing a blood transfusion when that is the only alternative available to possibly save life would be deemed an act of suicide, and not living in harmony with the scriptures you would be DF'd (and probably dead -- but of course you will die DF'd). If the GB came out with something like that new light, would you then DA yourself because you feel so strongly about your conviction towards refusing blood that even under those circumstances you would still refuse a blood transfusion?

What I'm getting at is what is motivating you to refuse a blood transfusion? If it is truly your own free will, as is my case with the seat belts, then I applaud you, however, if it is because you are trying to rationalize a decision by the GB, then I think you need to at least come out and say the reason you refuse a blood transfusion is because the WTBTS says not to have one for biblical reasons. If you are attempting to cover over a biblical decision with a rational arguement, that is IMHO an insult to the bible principles that you claim to adhere to.. You should be preaching the virtue's of the biblical light that you have received from the F&DS, not trying to rationalize it, or make an excuse for it.

VioletAnai

Dung you are a hypocrite.

VioletAnai

To answer your question LittleOlMe.....

If the GB were ever to change this policy, it wouldn't affect me in any way. I have had numerous discussions with my family, mostly to do with organ transplants. While they aren't condemned by the GB, I wouldn't personally want someone elses organ inside me, family or not. It is the same with blood. I don't want someone else's blood intermingling with me....my blood and tissue is very personal to me, I wouldn't want it contimated with someone else.

I, too, once had to make a choice on taking blood, when I was a teen, but I chose not too, becos it made me physically sick to the stomach to think about such a thing. There are amazing things they can do with volumes in the body where no blood is needed, just as long as there is enough volume in the body, to carry more red cells to where they need to go. So we now have this risk free procedure vs unreliably-screened blood. Why take an unnecessary risk like that? Especially when the medical profession says we don't have to anymore.

So, my decision is definitely NOT motivated by a few silly old gits who are out of touch with the real world. How can I put faith in those silly old gits when they've destroyed mine and countless other lives with their two-witness policy.

Edited by - Violetanai on 1 July 2002 23:7:40

This is why I don't like transfusions.......

Share this