Another JW dies needlessly - front page news

dmouse

This was on the front page of my local paper today, Nov 7th, Leicester UK.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=42655&command=displayContent&sourceNode=42318&contentPK=2990435

joannadandy

I think it is more likely she would have survived had she allowed a blood transfusion or clotting agents to be given.

I didn't know they can't have clotting agents...what's up with that?

I have read a lot on their views of transfusions and what they can do.There were other procedures they could have used! Just another case of medical incompetence and peope ignorance! Their are some good posts under "Blood and Medical treatment.". I know they can channel the blood back in the body if it doesn't leave the tube! But they can't store it. They ls could hav echecked her blod for clotting before the operation and given her vitamin K. My Dad was on blood thinner ..and even if they only take aspirin..they can bleed a lot!. Too many Drs. don't take that into consideration.

They actually have a "Bloodless Hospital " here in St Louis..where they use No Blood for anyone. I wonder how many witnesses are told about this?They cater to JW's.

When my Dad had that pocedure done..they plopped him in bed and left! Well I had to arrange his covers and noticed he was laying in a pool of blood!. Nobody was coming in and checking on him. I pressed the buzzer..no answer Went in the hall and saw no one! I started yelling fo help and finally they all came running!. They applied pressure and thank goodness he stopped. But I wouldn't leave his side untill I was sure he was OK......

Snoozy...

A Paduan

I think that the "clotting agents" referred to may have been human coagulation factors, though it seems odd that bleeding could not be stopped - heparin, which is likely what she was given to inhibit coagulation during the angiogram is reversed by administering protamine sulphate, which renders heparin inactive by binding to the molecule, though some people can't have it without an anaphalactic reaction because it's made from fish eggs. If she did indeed have aspirin she would have to have received platelets (human blood platelets), because aspirin binds irreversibly to platelets and you can bleed until you make more.

There are reasons that some people are at greater comorbidity risk from hypercoagulation and dangerous thrombis formations - it sounds like there was more to her general condition, but as the doc said, some blood would have done the trick. Angiogram (cardiac catheterisation) is associated with many morbidities and mortalities - I would not think that passing a tube through my main femoral vein all the way to my heart to release a contrast agent, while undergoing hundreds of x-rays is an everyday thing - it might be for cardiac hospitals, but not for the average joe.

paduan

outnfree

The problem here most likely is that lifelong Witnesses have had it so ingrained in them that "blood is prohibited" meaning ALL BLOOD to most of them, that they don't even bother to try to understand about the fractions. I know many at my former Hall felt that the Bible said "No blood" and that was that, no matter WHAT the Society LATELY said about fractions (such as clotting factors) being allowed, because the Bible is GOD's Word (not [anointed] man's). So, they continue to refuse any blood treatment. And they continue to die.

Very sad.

out

Trauma_Hound

They also give baby's Vitamin K routinly hear, after birth.

Robdar

"The results showed no trace of heart disease, but the procedure had triggered internal bleeding and she was admitted to the LRI after feeling unwell at home."

It seems to me that the botched medical procedure is the cause of her death. The refusal of the blood transfusion appears to be a secondary complication.

Robyn

johnathanseagull

Dmouse........Leicestershire eh?..........myself and pleasuredome, might well be very close to you?............I've written to the person who wrote the article, pointing them to the www.ajwrb.org site and the fallacy of the doctrine

J Gull

Pistoff

outnfree wrote:

The problem here most likely is that lifelong Witnesses have had it so ingrained in them that "blood is prohibited" meaning ALL BLOOD to most of them, that they don't even bother to try to understand about the fractions

Right on the money. Almost NO witness I know, understands the blood policy and the only reason I do is that I researched it on the net. The publications are obtuse, intentionally, and do NOT outline the products available. The HLC should know however.

When the whole fellowship realizes that many have died who could have been saved by products that are allowed even under that sadistic policy, I hope they rise up and sue the bastards.

I shake my head at the ones who refuse ANY blood, citing their conscience. Their "conscience" was trained by the erroneous policy from Brooklyn, having changed many times in the last 50 years. They don't get it now, that Brooklyn is slowly abandoning the blood policy, and they don't have to die.

I remember in the 70's knowing someone who did not believe in vaccinations and I always wondered why; now I know that the society forbid them early on, many imprinted the info on their "conscience" and never could shed the prohibition, just like the blood information today.

How much blood is on Brooklyn's hands over this? ALL of it.

jack2

Not to be overlooked here is what Robyn pointed out:

"The results showed no trace of heart disease, but the procedure had triggered internal bleeding and she was admitted to the LRI after feeling unwell at home."
It seems to me that the botched medical procedure is the cause of her death. The refusal of the blood transfusion appears to be a secondary complication.

I agree with her - this was a case of a medical procedure gone awry, and that her death due to refusal to accept blood was a very unfortunate secondary complication.

Either way, it is sad, unfortunate, and it appears to have been ultimately preventable.