72
Stay alive till 75!
female martyrs will be chief of 72 virgins the fairest of the women, and plus she will made beautiful , happy and without jealousy .."whoopee" their paradise is worst than jw's paradise..
72
Stay alive till 75!
female martyrs will be chief of 72 virgins the fairest of the women, and plus she will made beautiful , happy and without jealousy .."whoopee" their paradise is worst than jw's paradise..
72 virgins the fairest of the women
nuns (none)
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
if any alternatives would come under consideration, which in turn, would speak directly to the question(s) of whether they are "more work" and/or "less profitable."
"You can't treat leukemia without blood products."
As it relates to the specific case on this thread, the Court decided that doctors should try alternatives first. Relating to the treatment of leukemia, as a general rule, when chemo is used to treat the disease, blood is also used to treat the effects that chemo has on the blood of the patient, as you already explained. As my linked article shows, some JW survive the chemo without blood, others die, but others die too even with the blood. Also as it relates to leukemia, at this time, not based on a doctor's opinion but according to standard medical treatment for the disease, they use blood, not because it is more propfitable or easier but because they know it works- at least short term. Long term, every 9 minutes someone dies from leukemia, even those with the blood transfusions, whether you want to call the BT treatment for leukemia or for chemo.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
Transfusion is actually not a treatment for leukemia in and of itself
Academic discussion.
No blood management becomes inapplicable at that point. --You can't manage what's not there.
"No blood management" becomes 'inapplicable' at any point in treating any health problem where blood is the one and only efficacious treatment, as for example treating the consequences of chemo given to a patient with leukemia in a given case.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
(and for the patient) -OC
Not always. For example, a friend received a routine BT during surgery, it was infected, it was horrible to see her dying.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
Are you sure you understand how leukemia is treated
@TD: My statement is true whether or not blood is the most effective or the only effective treatment for any given illness --but I was not referring specifically to lukemia in my post. If a person looses about 20 percent of blood volume for example, they can go into hypovolemic shock, blood expanders can help to a point but there comes a point where only blood will help.
Blood harvested for BT should come from non infected, willing donors that are not killed for the product; and since blood is being used to save a human life and no harm is being done to another person, it is easy to feel that a BT is not wrong. But is there ever a point where a person should feel that it is wrong to commit an act for the purpose of self preservation?
https://transfusionfree.usc.edu/case-studies/case-study-transfusion-free-leukemia-treatment/
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
when a parent requests "second best" medical treatment for their child.
No. When a parent requests no-blood vs blood for a child, a physician has an obligation to the patient: to honestly decide in the best interests of the child. Everything considered, blood is the easy choice for a doctor, no-blood management is harder and more work. Doctors also look at what is more profitable.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
children should be protected from the evil of the Watchtower - including rape!
I don't know what you mean. People can feel however they like about things but if you or anybody else convicts wt specifically of doing something wrong or illegal, that is a different subject matter.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
A couple of cases that come to mind:
A child is in intensive care. Doctors decide that the child will need blood. JW parents ask the doctor to try non-blood first. Doctors refuse. No sooner than the doctors pump blood, the child dies.
A JW man is in the hospital and the doctor tells him that he needs a blood transfusion or he is going to die. (The man has had the same problem before and doctors give him a ferrous compound IV and he pulls through) Man asks for the ferrous compound and doctors refuse --and go on and on telling the man to take the blood or die. Then the man's loved one comes into the room and doctors kick everybody JW out. Man's loved one is not JW. Doctors tell the loved one to just say the word and the man will get the blood inspite of the blood card. Loved one instructs the doctor to follow the man's wishes. Doctors refuse and meanwhile the man's condition is getting worse. Finally, the doctor agrees to administer the ferrous compound, the man's condition improves to the point where he pulls through and is sent home.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/blood-transfusion-case-before-supreme-court/.
blood transfusion case before supreme court.
mother refuses transfusion on religious grounds for daughter with leukemia.
continue to ask the physician not to transfuse and to urge that no blood alternative treatments be utilized.
How does doing this: "continue to defy the law " and "Disobey court orders."
This court case in Mexico is entirely scripted and directed by the WTS/Org.
Are you accusing the Court in this case?