Fishermanan hour ago
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine/amp
Thanks for posting that Fisherman, though it probably doesn't say what you thought it would say, but at least it didn't hide from its truth. It was a good read, and I encourage people to read all three articles in the series. You'll see that there were originally two opposing extremes, the medical community was throwing blood around like crazy and JWs who were denying themselves any blood. Thanks to those two polar opposites, the medical community has found a better balance. Unfortunately, Jehovah's Witnesses have not, and in the articles you'll see several mentions of more deaths with the Witnesses because they abstain even in cases where modern medicine has gotten better, and you'll read a few gut wrenching tales of people dying because of blood refusal. I believe this touched me the most, from the third article in the series found here:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-ethics-of-bloodless-medicine
"The situation is more complicated when it comes to minors. In Ian McEwan’s novel “The Children Act,” a judge must decide whether to insist upon transfusion for a seventeen-year-old Jehovah’s Witness who has leukemia and who cannot receive two critical drugs without also accepting donor blood, according to his doctors. The judge visits the frail boy in the hospital, where he is writing poetry and learning to play violin. He is mature and articulate in his refusal of blood. Yet the judge concludes that he has experienced only an “uninterrupted monochrome” view of life, and that his welfare would be better served by not dying. (As the boy receives his transfusion, his parents, who have testified to their acceptance of religious dogma, weep openly, and he realizes they are weeping with joy.)"