Blood Transfusions Kill Patients, Say Doctors

by JW Ben 34 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  IT Support

  Hey guys, go easy on the lad: he's confused, he's having doubts, and he's fighting them. We've all been there. It's far better to help Ben than to frighten him off.

  JWBen,

  The quote you posted made some valid points, but so did the pervious posters.

  Nobody here is saying (I think!) that blood is a panacea and it's perfectly safe. It's not, and it isn't.

  A blood transfusion is a medical procedure that carries risks, just like every medical procedure (e.g. having a general anaesthetic, taking medicine, etc.). Doctos will usually only recommend any procedure if the risks are far outweighed by the benefits.

  So before you judge a procedure, you need accurate information about the risks and benefits (and don't be fobbed off with the nonsense that's in WT publications--do your own research on the web on the many reputable medical sites).

  Only when you have that information can you made a reasoned judgment, both on the procudure itself and then on the quality of WT's information that you may have previously relied on.

  Personally, although I now totally reject virtually all I learned from WT, I would prefer not to have a blood transfusion unless as a very last resort, if my life depended on it. But then again, others may decide differently for themselves.

  The main point, I guess, is that nobody should have the authority over your free will to tell you to sacrifice your life to their reasoning and their beliefs...

  Keep searching, keep questioning...
• 

  jgnat

  There are plenty of religions that carry prohibitions of various kinds. If that prohibition can result in death, however, I think the religious leadership should be held to account. What I find deceptive is that the Watchtower Society muddies this plain prohibition with exaggerated claims about blood's danger. They also mislead the people by suggesting that new bloodless technologies can allow them to follow this doctrine AND live.

  Of course blood transfusions are dangerous. But death is deadlier.
• 

  mtbatoon

  So if blood transfusions can in some circumstances be harmful this supports the JW's stance on blood.

  Medical technology is still in its infancy and it is only with the advancement of better diagnostic tools that procedures are better understood and improved.

  If as I believe it will a procedure such as a blood transfusion becomes risk free then this invalidates its support of the JW argument.

  They will use this in an argument as long as it is useful to them then discard it when it become contrary to their beliefs.
• 

  Poztate

  A good example of how confused the whole blood issue has become is found here http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/hemopure.shtml

  And also http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml

  The WT has continued to modify their stance on blood to the point is is only recognized by another Pharisee.

  In the begining the stand was..NO BLOOD...Then the WT found that to get missionaries to other countries they had to take a vaccination that had a "little blood" in it.They modified their stand on blood,not because the bible had changed but because it suited their business interests.

  The blood issue has gone downhill ever since to the point where you need HLC members with you just to point out what is O.K. (today) and what is not.They would like to drop the whole thing and they will in time but meanwhile people keep dying for them...
• 

  Rabbit

  JW Ben,

  I don't really know anything about your history with the Witnesses, it doesn't matter. I understand, because I believed as you did for over 30 years. I had no REAL doubt, until the 'theory' I believed in became 'very personal'.

  I am not going to argue scriptures, I won't argue that some "blood tranfusions kill people", either. Hell, in a well publicized event recently an organ transplant recipient died, because somebody mis-type matched the blood type of the donor !

  Of course, you know just a few years ago...if that organ recipient was a JW...they would have withered and died, because, unseen men in Brooklyn, said organ transplants were 'cannibilism'. Then one day, the sun comes up on the JW Empire and the same unseen, unknown 'little men behind the curtains'...working & pulling their levers in secret...decided transplants are 'OK' after all. So-o, did Jah mislead them before or after that 'doctrinal' change ? And what of the JW's who gave their lives following THAT belief ?

  However...my Mom did need a blood transfusion a few years ago. The "little unseen men in Brooklyn" said "NO!" They murdered my Mom as surely as with a gun. THEY convinced her to believe their con-game... that God told them transfusions were 'wrong.'

  In a few years or maybe the next issue of the WT, will these "unseen" little rulers tell us "Hey, uh...Jah told us last night...transfusions are now...A-OK ? Live long & Prosper !"

  You know why I think the "transplant" doctrine 'went away'? I would bet life got personal for a Governing Body member...someone close to them was going to die. Their loved one needed a heart, kidney, liver... "New Light" is b o r n . . .

  I will however argue that MY Mom would have lived. That is a fact. She DIED in a hospital, surrounded by frustrated doctors who COULD save her from suffocating to death from lack of Oxygen. Her DEATH WARRANT was sealed however, by a 'Blood Card' duly signed and "witnessed" by 'anointed' Elders, appointed by 'God's annointed' Governing Body. A "Kill Me for Free" card. To make sure she died properly...the "Holy Hospital Liason Death Commitee" was there, too.

  My whole family watched my Mom's bright hazel eyes stop moving...dilate and die. Have you ever seen that happen ?

  Overheard in my Mom's room after the gasping, crying and sobbing quietened a little, my JW sisters and others...were walking around 'comforting' the other JW's by saying: "It is so sad, but you know Jehovah is SO proud of her...she died faithful...that's all that really counts, isn't it?" "Yes, I am so proud she did not give in to Satan's pressures" "She could have taken the easy way out..."

  * sigh* I'll bet the same words were spoken when loved ones died that could not accept an organ transplant.

  The "unseen" little rulers still don't know or care about my mother.

  If you sense bitterness, you read well. Please open your mind, JW Ben, before the same happens to your loved ones. It will become very, very personal. I waited too late to save my Mom.

  Rabbit
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Jwben,

  Can you give us a source or web site where you got this article because I typed different sections of this article in the Search engine and came up with no hits.
• 

  holly

  and exercise is bad for you too!!!! Some professor has written a book, with his daughter i believe, who says that moderate gentle exercise is fine, but being super fit is deterimental to health. they reckon that we only have a certain amount of life energy, and if we go mad exercising we use it up to quick.

  oh thats good news, im gonna live till 150. just gonna grab my breakfast and go back to bed - dont want work myself into an early grave

  on the issue of blood, i have never taken it and never would, neither would i have an organ transplant. ive seen someone die from contaminated blood. ok so now its screened. but whats in there that might not show up for a few months. suppose some new disease arises, but cant be detected for say 1 year, while it mutates. i wouldnt take any risks. and ive also seen the bad results of organ transplants. leave well alone as far as im concerned. when my time is up, its up.

  holly
• 

  JW Ben

  I posted that article to show that there are problems with blood. No matter how well blood might work or not work (I have never seen any study that shows 100% that blood saves lives. I do know from friends that have survived when they were told that they would not because of not taking a transfusion that doctors do not know for sure that blood saves. I have seen people heomglobine level drop to 3 and survive. A study needs to be done of people in the same situation that take blood and do not tkar blood and compared. The closste that I have heard of is in the recovery rates of operations. Non blood people recover quicker. This could be that the doctors have taken more care, then it might not)

  The WTS has never said that God tpld them that transfusions are wrong. The bible principles on blood clearly demonstrate that blood is "sacred" in the eye of God. That is the principle behind no blood. JWs that do not accept blood generally do so because they understand those principles. I have known many JWs to have refused blood when they were told otherwise and are still alove. This includes trsauma victums. Years ago (late 60s early 70s) here there was a right royal stink in the papers about a young man that had a motorcycle accident and lost a leg and the use of one arm. The papers reported he will die. It was big news here. When he lived no mention was ever masde of it.
• 

  Quotes

  JWBEN said:
  =========================
  I have seen people heomglobine level drop to 3 and survive.
  =========================
  
  I'm truly glad these people did not die. However, let me explain why this is both "anecdotal" and "stacking the odds against you" by analogy (you should like my use of analogy, since Jesus used a lot of analogies):
  
  "I have seen people playing BlackJack "HIT" on 19 or 20, and NOT BUST and they beat the dealer and WON the bet."
  
  or
  
  "I have seen people playing BlackJack "STAND" on 10 or 11, and the THE DEALER THEN BUSTED and they beat the dealer and WON the bet."
  
  Yeah, it sometimes happens that way, but in life, like in cards, the prudent thing to do is go with the statistically "safe" bet. I agree that transfusions, like any other serious medical procedure, should be carefully administered only in cases where there is a clear need. (Well, duh, I also don't think that tonsils, appendixes, or "extra" kidneys should be removed unless it is necessary! ;) )
  
  The other thing I'd like to ask: why is taking 1 Liter of whole blood as a transfusion a gross misuse of the "symbol" of life, but accepting a blood protein which requires DOZENS of liters of blood in order to refine one dose is OK???? In other words, consume 1 liter directly is bad, but consuming dozens of liters indirectly is OK???? Doesn't the "respect the symbol of life" argument fall apart there? It does for me, but maybe you have a different way of rationalizing it.
  
  Finally, please provide (as was already requested) the source from which you obtained this quote. It appears that you've cut/pasted from a New York Times article, whichis fine, but could you please provide the source URL.
  
  ~Quotes, of the "knows that JWs are allowed to accept blood transfusions in Bulgaria" class
• 

  IP_SEC

  Hey JWBen,

  I dont believe myself the blood is the be all end all of medicine. I dont think anyone wants to have a blood transfusion. Right? I mean really. I'm not going to even say that blood transfusion save lives. I think all that stuff is irrelevant. One of the big things that got me at odds with the society is its Pharasiac legalism on the blood issue.

  The bible is simple, abstain from blood. What does that mean? Well I think you need to answer that betwixt you and God. The WTS though has created a Talmudic hedge around God's word on this though. Only a Pharisee could come up with the current policy.

  You can take hemaglobin, what is hemaglobin? Its basically a red blood cell without a cell membrane. Now why can I not have whole red blood cells but I can have hemaglobin?

  If I drink a glass of raw milk (yuk, I hate milk) I drink a bunch of white blood cells but I cant have an injection of white blood cells

  Why can I not have a transfusion of plasma, but I can have an injection of every single componant of plasma? See what I mean? Its a ridiculous policy.

  Worst of all, why can I have all of these fraction therapys which come from thousands of blood donations, but I can be disfellowshipped for donating blood?

  IPSec