To TD and Marvin Shilmer, can we see a reference on your information?If it's on this thread somewhere I'll look for it since I haven't read the whole thing yet.
Also the following:
1. Why is it important to mention, even if it is true, that "whole blood" (definition still not made in this conversation) is used on battlefields? Do JWs go to war? Are any of us on the battlefield right now? so to this point again I say, if it only exists on battlefields, then for all of us here, not on a battlefield (battle field needs to be defined as well since we don't really have battlefields since WWI. These days "the front" is not really the same as it was in the old days. "Hot Spots" is the phrase now used in battle, because of modern weapons. There is no "front line" ever since armies stopped lining up in actual lines and shooting at one another. So, I really don't know what you are talking about when you sAY "BATTLE FIELD.") fOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, WHOLE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS DO NOT EXIST. End of story unless you can give me a good reason to talk about battlefield situations and JWs.
2. as to the claim that someone somewhere is looking at whole blood transfusions again and thinking maybe we should do more of them, well, where is that reference, who said it, and what was the context?
3. I believe that we need to set aside this phrase for a very good reason. It will save lives. If JWs have no medical procedure to point to as "whole blood transfusion" then they will be stymied as to be able to point at exactly what it is that they are so opposed to. I don't believe that any JW is ever pressured to accept a whole blood transfusion these days. So this being the case, a JW will be forced to really spell out exactly what it is that they are objecting to. It will then come down to:
1. "I object to white blood cells" No worries, we didn't want to give you one of those anyway.
2. I object to platelets." OK but you take clotting factors which is essentially platelets, so exactly what part of the platelet do you object to? The JW will not know what to answer. Then it will be that much easier for the doctor to say, "Well, you are allowed all these clotting factors, and I just informed you that clotting factors are essentially platelets and they are allowed by the WT, so what say you just take the rest of the platelets?" What could they say? If the doctor really felt that they needed the platelets whole and not just a derivative, then, he would be able to do that, talk the JW into accpeting them much easier. This is the upside to stopping the use of the term "whole blood transfusion." Saving lives.
3. "I object to whole red blood cells." OK, we'll just put these red blood cells in a little machine and spin them around and then you'll accept them right? "Uh, yeah I guess so." Well if the doctor needs them to accept whole red blood cells after already administering hemoglobin (red blood cells are essentially sacks of hemoglobin) then he can say, "Well, you already took a transfusion of red blood cells that had their sack linings punctured. WQhy don't you just take a few in-tact red blood cells since you have already taken so many punctured red blood cells. what's the difference?
It will make the JW really realize just how fine a line there is between what they already accept and what they could accept if they took everything available to them. The knowledge about blood really makes one realize that JW leaders are really getting down to the nitty gritty on the things they will accept and the things they won't.
When you force the JW to get just as nitty gritty with what they individually accept, then it will REALLY seem INSANE for a person to get DAd over for example accepting just one tiny little bit more than the last person accepted, whole platelets instead of a major dirivative of platelets, an in tact red blood cell as opposed to a red blood cell that had a tiny hole punched in it... you get the point, hopefully.
So I am asking Marvin Shilmer to lay aside the notion that whole blood transfusions are a sticky point with JWs. The fact is that no JW is ever going to be pressured to accept a whole blood transfusion, as defined as: blood that has been donated and that has not undergone ANY processing that might take away any part of blood however small.
I am saying we should be strict in how we use the word whole. Whole is 100%. 99.9% is not whole. If ANY tiny bit of blood has been processed out, like for example, if the blood has been heat treated (as all blood is) then there are microscopic particles in the blood that evaporate. Once heat treated the blood is not whole anymore. It can then be called fractionated blood, something thaT A JW would be OK with taking. Get it? Saving Lives.