by OrphanCrow 50 Replies latest watchtower medical
Weird - can't access to post on the other thread in this section?....
Anyway:
Check out the radio interviews from Friday 25 AND Thursday 24 May 2017 below
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
- On Thursday 25 May 2017: Phil Dunne was interviewed
- On Friday 26 May 2017: John J May (ex-Elder) and Phil's father Sean Dunne where interviewed
ALSO
check out Phil Dunne's wife's website that gives a week-by-week update regarding what happened....
It starts in August 2012.....
Its quaintly laughable that the WTS pushes the use of fractions of blood or parts of blood and then say that's alright.
Its Jah's loving provision to be complacently corrupt and dishonest.
Vidiot: Personally, I suspect the fraction justifications that started out back in the 90s were really the Org's fumbly attempts to explain why many blood-related treatments (like Hemopure) had already been allowed, in response to some of the smarter rank-and-filers out there asking "why?"...
Of course. That is the history of the shifting blood doctrine.
Almost all of the "now allowed" procedures/blood products etc that have been officially published in WT literature, have been preceded by those procedures/products already being used for sometimes years before reaching that "approved" status.
For example, it was in the 90s (94?) that the WT finally approved acute normovolemic hemodilution and yet the medical literature has many cases of JWs who were having that procedure long before the WT approved/admitted it. The same with cell salvage machines.
Most WT approved procedures are simply admitted procedures. When they have to. Or when they want to brag /promote a procedure or product.
I was wondering if the changes to "policy" (interesting word use to describe Bible "principles") weren't the result of some higher up becoming a hemophiliac (or some other medical necessity requiring "fractions") and needing treatment that would not be available unless they made a change in policy.
Also..... it just struck me.... animals (my cat kills the gophers) eat blood all the time.... but the Society has to to say "no blood in animal food".......
Darkspliver, Phil's story - and many others like him - is what exposes that underbelly of the no blood world that the WT doesn't talk about.
The media is full of the fluff press releases that appear from time to time that extol the miracles of someone surviving a no blood procedure or something like that. And medical studies analyze case reports of JWs to determine "How Low Can you Go?" to get baseline measurements of death.
And mortality rates are compared (with poor methods of analysis) but morbidity is ignored. What is almost never spoken about is the increased suffering and increased pain that accompanies no blood options. Contrary to what people would expect, death (and sometimes survival) from blood refusal is long and painful. Not a happy way to endure what is already a horrible condition.
I know this personally. When I was 6 years old, my uncle was diagnosed with brain cancer. It was an operable tumor. Except it wasn't because of blood refusal. It was a long and painful year - my uncle was buried just before my seventh birthday. A horrible year of pain and suffering - because of refusing blood.
That is why I didn't have to read Phil's story, Darkspliver. I am happy he survived. My uncle didn't. And I watched him die. Slowly. When I was six years old.
"...fractions of blood that help the blood to clot, are essential to bloodless surgery..."
So basically, "bloodless" surgery actually requires blood.
Which makes the term "bloodless" essentially meaningless.
cha ching - "I was wondering if the changes to 'policy' (interesting word use to describe Bible 'principles') weren't the result of some higher up becoming a hemophiliac (or some other medical necessity requiring "fractions") and needing treatment that would not be available unless they made a change in policy."
Pretty sure that's why organ transplants suddenly became a "conscience matter" seemingly out of the blue back in the late 70s(?)...
That is why I didn't have to read Phil's story, Darkspliver
Sorry, I didn't post it for you to read.
I posted it because the following thread seems to have either been screwed up or has been closed down (why)!?!?
and I've got a video about something else to post......
sorry
darkspliver: Sorry, I didn't post it for you to read.
Oh...please don't apologize. I didn't mean that your posting the story wasn't wanted or needed. I hope other people read it. Phil's story should be shared.
Thanks for posting it. It is relevant.
Vidiot: So basically, "bloodless" surgery actually requires blood.
Which makes the term "bloodless" essentially meaningless.
Yes. "Bloodless" surgery/medicine is a misnomer. A made up created term that the WT has exploited and misrepresented in order to give the impression that "bloodless" means "not using blood".
Not true.
"Bloodless" actually refers to the creation of a bloodless surgical field. The term was first used by surgeons such as Denton Cooley but it did not mean "without blood transfusions". It meant that the heart was drained of blood and became bloodless - therefore making it accessible to surgical procedures. That was back in the early 60s. Incidentally...right before the WTS made taking a blood transfusion a disfellowshipping offense (1961).
The WTS, and their affiliated medical "professionals", appropriated the term "bloodless", along with all the blood transfusion technology developed up to that point, and promoted the heart and lung procedure for surgery other than heart surgeries. Voila! The birth of the WT's so called "bloodless" surgery. That uses blood transfusion technology and blood products/fractions. To creat a bloodless patient.
Bloodless? No. The patient is bloodless - the procedure itself is anything but bloodless.
Watchtower bloodspeak. Deceptive and misleading. Intentionally.
Two important facts you will never hear or read out of a WTS article concerning blood, one is that blood transfusions have saved millions of lives since its inception as medical procedure and two that thousands of devout JWS have died due to refusing a blood transfusion since this doctrine was established in the early 1940's.
