by OrphanCrow 75 Replies latest watchtower medical
RO: I am not sure if he meant that Bloodless surgery is when the person has no blood which is what he said or is it that it leads to the person having no blood. I am not sure. that is why I asked him to clarify that statement.
It was pretty simple.
Go back and read it again.
*hint...it isn't what Simon says
Richard Oliver - Would I take a blood transfusion? No. I am only and Ex-Witness because I am gay and that is it if I could be gay and a witness then I would be. I do believe in the vast majority of what JWs believe in. But a blood transfusion should be a personal decision.
Hey, look at that, you were able to answer the question. I respect you for doing that. Too bad your dub buddy is a coward unlike you. Nice.
Now that I've commended you for finally participating in the thread as it was intended, I have to say that although you speak as though you have authority and credibility, you kind of showed your cards in the bold part above. Maybe instead of trying to dictate every thread that deals with legalities by muddying waters you should be spending your time putting that same intellect and time into picking apart those JW beliefs that are keeping you stuck. You'd make a much better apostate than you do reluctant cult outsider. If you're still buying what they're selling though (aside from the sexuality and blood issue, which really set you farther apart from their beliefs than I think you think), then your credibility for critical thinking in these issues of blood and child sexual abuse really takes a massive hit.
Sorry you find yourself in such conflict for real though. It can't be easy to walk around buying the lies that they're selling and defending them here all the while knowing they would have you killed gladly at the hand of the very beliefs that you're still hanging on to. That's a tough path to walk. It's also a tough path though to get from "I do believe in the vast majority of what JW's believe in" while being gay and thinking that blood transfusions are a personal choice. I mean, it puts you in direct conflict with JW teachings on sexuality, blood, the Bible as God's word, Jehovah's sovereignty, His use of the faithful and discreet slave and their claim to be just that, etc., and those alone are some of the big things that Witnesses hang their entire belief structure from.
Keep posting here though and eventually maybe you'll start reading more than you post and the house of cards that you believe in will fall down, especially if you start getting into Biblical topics and researching and reading those instead of these current topics where you find yourself defending those that are looking forward to you becoming bird food.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled bloodless programming............
Yes, I did say that I believe it should be a personal decision. And I used the Catholic Hospitals and Abortions so show that sometimes we still don't get choices even if we are not part of a religion.
I hate to break it to you RO, but Catholic is indeed a religion that people are a part of. Maybe you meant "this religion", as in JWs, there at the end. I don't know, but you seemed to be trying to take heat off the Watchtower by claiming that others do bad things too, which is just plain sad. Again it seems like you just can't take truly looking at the horrors of the religion known as Jehovah's Witnesses because you're still hung up on their beliefs and a delusion that somehow you're in harmony with them. I understand. A year before I left I was doubling down and defending Jehovah's Witnesses on some other online forums against people that said they protected pedophiles and such. I have a feeling that if you're as intelligent as you try to portray and you can shed the F.O.G. that they've laid on you, you'll have a change of heart like I did and you'll be as upset as I and others are that you were tricked into defending them.
Fishermanan hour ago
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine/amp
Thanks for posting that Fisherman, though it probably doesn't say what you thought it would say, but at least it didn't hide from its truth. It was a good read, and I encourage people to read all three articles in the series. You'll see that there were originally two opposing extremes, the medical community was throwing blood around like crazy and JWs who were denying themselves any blood. Thanks to those two polar opposites, the medical community has found a better balance. Unfortunately, Jehovah's Witnesses have not, and in the articles you'll see several mentions of more deaths with the Witnesses because they abstain even in cases where modern medicine has gotten better, and you'll read a few gut wrenching tales of people dying because of blood refusal. I believe this touched me the most, from the third article in the series found here:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-ethics-of-bloodless-medicine
"The situation is more complicated when it comes to minors. In Ian McEwan’s novel “The Children Act,” a judge must decide whether to insist upon transfusion for a seventeen-year-old Jehovah’s Witness who has leukemia and who cannot receive two critical drugs without also accepting donor blood, according to his doctors. The judge visits the frail boy in the hospital, where he is writing poetry and learning to play violin. He is mature and articulate in his refusal of blood. Yet the judge concludes that he has experienced only an “uninterrupted monochrome” view of life, and that his welfare would be better served by not dying. (As the boy receives his transfusion, his parents, who have testified to their acceptance of religious dogma, weep openly, and he realizes they are weeping with joy.)"
Thank you Richard Oliver for doing your best to clarify in your posts what "Bloodless Surgery" means when hospitals refer to a medical technique that they use- as Bloodless Surgery.
I hope that my linked videos that explain and illustrate what "Bloodless Surgery" in fact is, clears up any misconceptions or colorful views on "Bloodless Surgery" to everyone.
All Bloodless Surgery means when a Hospital or doctor uses the term, is that the hospital will use as little blood as possible. And if possible zero blood, but that is not always the case.
So, a person trying to avoid a blood transfusion as much as possible during surgery, may opt to use this technique, but doctors do not guarantee that they won't use blood. They won't use blood if they don't need to but they will if they have to, and if they have to, they will try to use as little as possible -a fraction. And regardless of whether or not blood is used in the medical procedure, hospitals still use the term "Bloodless" to describe the therapy.
Some JW that want to avoid a blood transfusion may opt for this procedure with zero guarantee from the hospital that the hospital will not use blood, but with the assurance from the hospital that if blood is needed, the hospital will only use a fraction using this technique.
