i have made a poll to try to determine the impact of the wt's no blood policy on ex members.. if you are an exjw, please participate.. vote here:.
*oops...hang on here...i have to make a new poll...this one lets you vote more than once.
i will post the new one .
I have made a poll to try to determine the impact of the WT's no blood policy on ex members.
If you are an exJW, please participate.
http://theconversation.com/blood-transfusion-refusals-why-new-guidelines-arent-up-to-scratch-70237.
blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch .
february 22, 2017. blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure.
Blondie, please do not call me a liar. That isn't nice.
I READ THE LINKS.
A religious group that forbids ALL medical treatment is NOT the same as a religious group that specifically forbids blood transfusions for their patients.
A religious group that forbids ALL medical treatment cannot be included in a discussion concerning PATIENTS who refuse blood transfusions.
That religious group does not have patients - they don't seek out medical care so their refusal of medical treatment is a moot point when it comes to blood transfusions. And as far as the lengthy list you posted concerning minor children...it is STILL a moot point.
http://theconversation.com/blood-transfusion-refusals-why-new-guidelines-arent-up-to-scratch-70237.
blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch .
february 22, 2017. blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure.
Blondie: OC: Still haven't read the links have you?
darkspliver: haha - a rhetorical question because we already know the answer
I have read those links.
And I have read many more just like them. I am familiar with Christian Scientist cases and with their teachings concerning medical care.
Both of you have missed my point completely.
*darkspliver...you are being an ass
http://theconversation.com/blood-transfusion-refusals-why-new-guidelines-arent-up-to-scratch-70237.
blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch .
february 22, 2017. blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure.
"...cases of minor children of CS parents cases"
Minor children would receive medical care - including blood. A blood transfusion would be a non-issue in those cases.
"Also non-CS religions, smaller groups but just as difficult to deal with"
And those would be...?
http://theconversation.com/blood-transfusion-refusals-why-new-guidelines-arent-up-to-scratch-70237.
blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch .
february 22, 2017. blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure.
Ha!
I knew that Christian Scientists would come up in this.
Tell me how the Christian Scientists ban on all medical treatment would effect the medical communities handling of no-blood procedures on Christian Scientist patients.
There are no Christian Scientists patients - they have excluded themselves from being considered for any medical care.
They don't qualify to be included in groups who forbid blood transfusions because their group doesn't exist at all when it comes to discussing medical care requirements.
Christian Scientists simply don't factor in when discussing blood transfusion refusal. It isn't like a doctor is faced with deciding whether to transfuse or not or what kind of medical procedures to follow when it come to the CS - there is no care - the CS person does not exist as a medical patient.
The Christian Scientist patient is a red herring - they don't exist.
http://theconversation.com/blood-transfusion-refusals-why-new-guidelines-arent-up-to-scratch-70237.
blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch .
february 22, 2017. blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure.
Blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure. However, some groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, forbid blood transfusions on religious grounds.
I find the wording in the opening sentence problematic.
"However, some groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses..." gives the impression that there are more groups than just the Jehovah's Witnesses that forbid blood transfusions.
There isn't. I have yet to find any other group except the Jehovah's Witnesses that forbids blood transfusions.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY religious group that forbids blood transfusions.
This opening sentence misleads the reader right from the start by implying that the JWs are just one of others who also follow the same practice. There are no others.
What the medical world does grapple with, however, is the spill over effect of the WT anti-blood propaganda. They refer to " people who refuse blood transfusions for reasons unrelated to religion". This group includes all the exJWs who cannot shake the anti-blood indoctrination they have been exposed to by the WT.
"Reasons unrelated to religion" means that lots of those people have believed the pseudo-science that the WT has spread about the dangers of blood transfusions. The WT is responsible for instilling a blood phobia in their followers and that phobia has spread like a virus into the medical community and into the patient community at large.
fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
Steve: JWs love to cite these flawed studies...
What is really bad about these flawed studies is that it isn't only the JWs who cite them, the whole bloodless cult does. These studies are used by bloodless "experts" to support their position and to promote bloodless medicine for everyone
fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
Exactly, Steve.
That is one of the problems with a recent paper published by Dr. Aryeh Shander. That paper is discussed in this thread here:
Not only did Shander and his research team drop out the patients who died in the first 24 hours but they also did not include the second surgery those bloodless patients may have had. The results of that study are useless because the methodology is flawed.
*to add-
another flawed research paper about bloodless surgery:
fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
steve2: By contrast, with elective surgery or surgery that can be planned ahead of time, alternatives to blood transfusions may well be available. Of note, JW organization has most to say about elective surgery, very little, if anything, to say about refusing blood following massive blood volume loss.
The WT doesn't tell the JWs that not everyone is eligible for alternatives to blood transfusions. Alternative treatment is not suitable for many patients. You have to have a certain level of health and age to undergo bloodless treatment.
That is one of the reasons that the many retrospective studies that have been done that compare no-blood to blood are misleading. Those who can have bloodless treatment are generally in better health than those who get blood. As well, those studies fail to take into consideration that elective bloodless surgery is often a two stage process. The studies only take into consideration the first bloodless surgery and not the second one that the patient has to complete the procedure.
fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
Doubtfully yours: Having said that, I feel so deeply indoctrinated that if right now I needed blood or an organ transplant to continue living, I would turn both propositions down.
By the way, a lady at my workplace is dealing with extra healthcare issues newly acquired since having a series of blood transfusions.
I understand the indoctrination and I have a question for you.
If the lady at your workplace was dealing with extra health care issues newly acquired since having a regime of antibiotics that did not agree with her, would you refuse antibiotics for your own personal health care?
