Had a operation today and was asked about blood transfusions. (page 2)

brandnew

Ummmm besides the blood stuff .......get well. It takes time to heal...dont try to push yourself. 🌷

OrphanCrow

DesirousofChange, I understand what it is that you are saying.

However, the starting position of the attitude that "doctors are more careful" when there isn't blood, is what I am challenging.

Saying such a statement doesn't take into account the reality of the situation.

Consider it from this use of an "illustration". (haha!)

Think of the surgical experience as an act where the surgeon and his medical team are being asked to walk on a tightrope across a deep ravine, holding the patient. In the surgery, the blood is the safety net under that tightrope. By refusing blood, the patient is not forcing the doctors "to be more careful", they are putting extreme pressure on the team to do their job...without a safety net.

That "extra carefulness" is just a weasel phrase for "create extreme anxiety in the medical team".

What sticks in my craw about that statement - "doctors are more careful" - is that doctors (good ones...there are 'bad' doctors...) are always careful. With or without blood. Without blood, they are being asked to perform a procedure without a vital tool in their toolkit.

And the JWs lap it up - they are led to believe that they are "special", that they are "elite" and that their refusal of blood (a safety net across that ravine that the doctors have to walk) is what will force the doctors to perform better...just because they are JWs who refuse to let the doctors do their job with the tools they have available. It is this misguided notion that the patient can force the doctor to perform better by simply taking his safety net away.

Yup...here ya go, doc...take that patient across that ravine...but don't look down, there isn't anything between you and that dark chasm that yawns below your feet.

Sure....that will make the doctor be "more careful."

baker

I use to look at Matt 15:17 as an out on this topic. Couldn't be more clearer.

Island Man

As far as I know it's only a conscience matter in that you can take it and they probably won't disfellowship you

Accepting whole blood or what Watchtower labels as its primary fractions is not considered by Watchtower to be a conscience issue. What they label as a matter of conscience is accepting what they label as "secondary fractions" of blood - fractions of fractions.

Also, a person who is found to have unrepentantly accepted blood is disassociated from the congregation. There's practically no difference between that and disfellowshipping. The distinction that Watchtower is attempting to make is purely for technical legal reasons. By way of illustration if we liken being disfellowshipped to being shot by someone; and disassociating to shooting yourself. Then being disassociated by the congregation is like someone putting a gun in your hand and forcibly pointing your hand with the gun at your head and squeezing your trigger finger.

steve2

In New Zealand, JW parents seldom protest when the Courts step in and order their minor children receive blood transfusions. In fact, it lets the parents off the hook and their children get life-saving treatment.

Win-win. JW parents are not "seen" as compromising their beliefs and the little ones prosper.

Through the family grapevine, I never ever hear protesting or complaining when the Courts do this.

Interesting, yes?

TheListener

Yeah I guess you're right OC. I just fell back on my old thinking which was the doctors would be more careful if they couldn't use blood. But, you're right it is unfair to assume that just because a doctor can use blood that they would play fast and loose with your life.

However, I would be willing to also agree that in specific circumstances with specific doctors that this could be true.

I did decide in my case to never mention the JW thing since I don't want my doctor worrying about anything other than my health and not what he/she can or cannot do.

TheListener

Island Man you only pasted part of my post. I wasn't going to say anything but it made me look even dumber than I am so here is the rest of the post:

...but by taking the blood you disassociate yourself which saves them the time and trouble of having a judicial committee. It's all semantics with the Dubisees (dub + Pharisees).

redpilltwice

Island Man et al told the truth about the policy regarding taking whole blood:

a person who is found to have unrepentantly accepted blood is disassociated from the congregation.There's practically no difference between that and disfellowshipping. The distinction that Watchtower is attempting to make is purely for technical legal reasons.

This was changed after the Bulgarian scandal regarding blood.

See: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bulgaria-blood-transfusions.php

I remember a CO explaining this during his visit. He told in one of his talks that someone disassociates himself after taking whole blood instead of being disfellowshipped. During the late 90's, I was still running the extra mile for the borg (reg. pioneer) and still too brainwashed (and unaware of the rise of the first sites critical of WT) to ask why the policy was changed regarding blood and not regarding idolatry, adultery etc. God, if I only had known how opportunistic the borg has been in so many cases.

Good thing there is still common sense among so many JW's who refuse the WT refusal of blood! Doesn't this indicate there is hope, one day the bubble has to burst! What if half of the borg would leave at a certain point?

Vanderhoven7

Yes, Matthew 15:11 is reiterated by Paul in I Cor.10:23-33 Romans 14:14-23

Lee Elder

Many of the physicians I have spoke with have had the experience of JW's, particularly those in their late teens or twenties, agreeing to accept some or all of the remaining banned blood products.

Had a operation today and was asked about blood transfusions.

Share this