I think the Watchtower had a hand in seeing that this story is written.
The Watchtower is trying desparately to undue the damage caused by the media stories of JW's losing their lives. The Watcthower also has several key cases in court (including one at the Canadian Supreme Court), and they are trying desparately to make their position look reasonable.
The fact is that the Watchtower's "no blood" is not good medicine. In the Sextuplet case, the Watchtower could only get two experts to testify that these kids did not need blood. Guess what? Both experts were "friendly" with their local Kingdom Halls, even attending Memorial serivces. The Watchtower could not get a Harvard scientist to back its claim.
In the Irish case of the woman who was transfused against her wishes, the Watchtower just lost. There, the Watchtower got 3 experts to testify about the woman's medical condition. Guess what? All 3 experts said that it was medically necessary for the woman to get the transfusions & would have given her the blood transfusions if she was not a JW. The reason was that she could easily start bleeding again, and she was already too low on blood. In her case, she lost anywhere between 50-75% of her blood and was down to a 5.1 in her blood level (normal is 12.0 - 15.0).
Now, I will address the article above.
I take issue with the New Scientise. It is all "pie in the sky". The article says that doctors are too quick to order blood, and should wait until a patient has a lower blood number. The article fails to tell the reader what the current transfusion guidelines are and what the author of New Scientist thinks they should be. The article does not say at what blood level a blood transfusion should be given to a healthy patient, versus an elderly patient, versus a newbornd. What are the chances a health person with a 5.1 hemoglobin will survive? Is it 10%? The New Scientist is very "unscientific" as it does not give set values. To a JW, this is a death "roll of the dice" as to how low to go.
Further, the New Scientist gives no hard number on AIDS/HIV, hepatitus, etc. What are the exact risks? AIDS is 1 in several million according to the Red Cross. This article makes blood look scarier than it is.
The article is also adrift on infections. Since there are infections that can occur, what about giving antibiotics to treat the infections? What is the success rate once antibiotics are given to the patient?
The New Scientist article is very similar to the "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" booklet by the Watchtower Society. Apostate attorney Kerry Louderback-Wood purblished a legal paper that beat up on this booklet's medical misinformation.
Courts realize that JWs are operating under medical misinformation. In the Irish courtcase, the dying woman wanted tomatoes and Coca-Cola as a blood substitue. On the stand, a JW testified that other JWs realize the health benefits of tomatoes and Coca-Cola for building up one's blood. In part, the Irish High Court stated that the JW could not give consent, as she could not process information as to her dire situation. In other words, she refused to see that she would eaily die without a blood transfusion. Becuase her mind was so colored (proven by the crazy tomatoe request), the court said she did not give "informed consent".
In Bethany Hughes, Bethany was given arsenic instead of blood.
Enough said.
Skeeter