Just out of morbid curiosity I was checking out the WTS site on the blood issue. What particularly stuck out was the "risks" of blood transfusions. Of course they pointed to the HIV debacle as support. But then they started quoting stats of 1 out of every 5000 transfusions can lead to death!!! Somehow they failed to mention the number of deaths that have been *avoided* by due to people receiving blood transfusions.
I dunno. I'm FAIRLY confident that in this country at least children are protected from these crackpot witness views via routine court orders. But targeting the adults in this fear factor hysteria which has basically no statistical/medical support is crossing the line. They followed up their fear-fest by suggesting that there are potentially many blood borne diseases (like AIDS) which we aren't even aware of!!!
Good God. Which is it JW's. Blood is "sacred," or we just feel it's "unhealthy" to administer to others. They don't seem to have a clear picture. It all boils down to faith. And fear.
Blood is "sacred," or we just feel it's "unhealthy" to administer to others
Although they still try to take the 'unhealthy' tack, I remember a statement that came up several times in the pubs my last couple of years in - "Of course(tm), Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusions on religious grounds...".
These statements were probably crafted by the legal department, who runs the show any more. I think they were made so that when they get taken to court, they could show the statements as evidence that they didn't brainwash anybody into believing that the risks of a blood transfusion outweigh the benefits, that it was strictly a religious matter.
I would like to see two medical comparisons shown side by side showing the WTS's 1 out of 5000 blood transfusions leads to death example compared to one that says, Out of 5000 people who REFUSED blood transfusions, X amount of people died. Let's see the numbers and then speculate on which practice saves more lives.
This is yet another reasoning point that I use if someone brings up the issue about blood transfusions killing people.
I would like to see two medical comparisons shown side by side showing the WTS's 1 out of 5000 blood transfusions leads to death example compared to one that says, Out of 5000 people who REFUSED blood transfusions, X amount of people died. Let's see the numbers and then speculate on which practice saves more lives.
It would be an interesting comparison, that's for sure.
Of course, if you read only Watchtower publications, you'd hardly know that anybody at all dies from not taking blood! They only tell the stories of those who refused blood and recovered, almost never of those who died (except, of course, for the famous "child martyr" issue of Awake!).
