Upcoming: Discovery Health Show about a JW blood situation

by M.J. 13 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  M.J.

  Here's the schedule for the upcoming show, "The Critical Hour: To Live or Die":
  

  Edited to add: Here's the description and the schedule, since I'm having trouble with the link:

  Discovery Health Channel:

  A boating accident lands a teen in the icy winter waters of the Chesapeake Bay. A Jehovah's Witness requires a life-saving blood transfusion but the procedure is not allowed in her religion. A woman saves herself and her children from an apartment fire.

  All times EST:

  Jan 23 2005 @ 09:00 PM The Critical Hour To Live or Die cc pg
  Jan 24 2005 @ 12:00 AM The Critical Hour To Live or Die cc pg
  Jan 24 2005 @ 03:00 AM The Critical Hour To Live or Die cc pg
  Jan 29 2005 @ 07:00 PM The Critical Hour To Live or Die cc pg
  Jan 30 2005 @ 02:00 AM The Critical Hour To Live or Die cc pg
• 

  Doubtfully Yours

  I've heard that the medical profession has given accolades to the WTBTS for pushing them to look for other methods of treatment when dealing with JWs.

  Dr. Laura read in her talk show some time ago a letter praising the JWs for making the medical profession look for other alternatives.

  I've also heard people that aren't JWs refuse blood treatments and then thank the JWs for giving them the liberty to do so while still having the opportunity to receive excellent level of care.

  I've been shocked say the least when I hear these expressions of approval!

  DY
• 

  M.J.

  In all fairness, I agree that individual JWs should receive support and every manner of medical assistance for their position on the matter. For them it is a terrifying situation, often a catch-22. Poor souls.

  But I know from experience in such a situation that coersive influence on the part of the organization is a huge part of their decision. So I guess that while you can admire individual JWs for their strength while they're in such a fix, you really have to shake your head about the organization that is putting them there.
• 

  zen nudist

  while I have come to see the JW no blood issue based on a misinterpretation of the bible, I do see that modern medicine

  is sloppy and dangerous and that people trained in bloodless surgery are better doctors for it...so it may end up that

  JWs being lab rats for the rest of us will benefit mankind in the long run.... who knows... we still have doctors

  giving toxic drugs which kill 100,000+ and maime another 2million annually while people cry over 3,000 killed by terrorists...

  and I am talking correctly taken and no conflicting drugs btw.

  check out www.nomorefakenews.com
• 

  pericusmeus

  I don' accept antibiotics, because of the bad experience I've had. I started with a little and ended up with heavy doses until I said enough.

  My daugther got eczema vaccinatum meaning bloody rashes all over the body because of the hepathitis B vaccine.

  My sister in law died at 23 because she was burnt in an accident and got a heavy sceptical infection right after a blood transfusion.

  My mother is deaf because of antibiotics.

  If you have arthritis, hepatitis C, MS, mD, ECZEMA, Psoriasis and many other conditions, the doctors will tell you plainly they don' know anything that would help you.

  Do you guys really thing that doctors are trust worthy.

  The Bible clearly commands the christians to abtain of blood. do you think knows what he is talking about? Do you think he had a reason for that?

  More people die by accepting blood thatn by refucing it,that is a fact.

  If I am allowed by law to refuse for me and my children chemotherapy (as supposedly lifesaving potion), shouldn't I be allowed to refuse blood transfusions?

  Blood is an organ, if one refuses a heart transpland, nobody is alowed to say anything, what is the difference.

  To my point of view one shoul respect the concience of the other including (WTS), and not put any presion on eitherside.

  If you read Paul 1 cor 10:25 , you can notice that it was not requiered to ask questions to the butcher, being that their own responsability, not the responsability of the consumer. It was highly probable that Paul itself had eeaten meat with blood and scrifice meat. so, why shoul one carry a non blood document? If you wish its ok, but every conscicne is different and each of us should respond in front of God.

  God also made exceptions in the blood issue, and is clearly stated in 1Samuel 14 and in the last verses of Leviticus 17.
• 

  JustTickledPink

  Blood is an organ, if one refuses a heart transpland, nobody is alowed to say anything, what is the difference.

  Check again, blood is NOT an organ. Your heart is an organ and believe it or not, you skin is the largest organ in your body, yes, your skin... but blood, nope, it's NOT an organ.

  Whether or not a blood transfusion is good or bad for you is all relative.... But it should remain up to the patient and his/her Doctor to decide treatment, it should not involve a religious organization. It's a personal matter and a personal choice. No one should be threatened with getting destroyed at armeggedon or not being resurrected because of their choice.
• 

  JustTickledPink

  BTW, I watched the show and I really liked it. It was filmed like a documentary, no spin, just showed the situation and stated facts.

  I did think it was ironic, they treated a 17 year old with severe hypothermia. He had been stuck outside after a duck hunting accident where they lost their boat, he came in with a core body temp somewhere in the 70's.. they used a heart machine to treat his hypothermia... they removed his own blood from his body and warmed it in this machine and cycled it back through his body...Let his blood warm him slowly from the inside. I kept thinking to myself, if this was a JW kid, would they have refused him treatment too? Because some JWs won't allow your own blood to be removed and then pumped back in. The kid was basically dead if he wasn't treated and they saved his life using that method. When the JW woman was laying there near death, the Doc asked if they could use her own blood if they operated and the husband said no.

  So I concluded that if that was his 17 yoa son, that kid maybe would have died too.
• 

  observador

  "More people die by accepting blood thatn by refucing it,that is a fact."
  
  Pericusmeus, you're right!
  
  What you stated is basic statistics, though.
  
  Of course more people die by accepting blood, since the vast majority do accept it. If it was the other way around, you could invert your sentence and it would be true as well.
  
  Observador.
• 

  steve2

  Most, if not all, medical interventions have risk elements. That doesn't make them unscriptural. It's a matter of intelligently weighing up the pros and cons and making a decision.

  When trying to make the "right" decision for oneself, it does not help to have heavy-handed pressure from one's religious associates. For example, autologous blood transfusions are very safe. I am aware of no medical problems with them, given that normal hospital practices are followed (as with all interventions). Yet, JWs will not accept them due to Watchtower rules.
• 

  roybatty

  More people die by accepting blood thatn by refucing it,that is a fact.

  That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. What twisted, stupid logic.