Why dont people read posts that are only 5 down in the list? Zico posted the entire article as well as the page 5 editorial.
Rachel Nowak is a PhD and has been the Australasian editor of NewScientist for many years. her email is rnowak@newscientist.com.au
I doubt she has any connection to the JWs, but then again, journalists take a lot of information on face value from various sources, so it could be her source information was produced/sponsored by the organisation ... and then again, maybe it is truly becoming apparent that blood isn't the be-all and end-all of medicine, and should be tested by modern methods like double-blind randomised trials to find where it is and isn't useful.
I certainly wouldn't want a blood transfusion in a cholecystectomy (barring some major complications), but I would want one if I had lost most of my blood in a car accident.
So like most of these issues between 'science' and 'religion', often neither are completely right, which is why there is an argument in the first place. JW's have rightly pointed out some of the bad side of blood transfusions, although not in an unbiased and medically helpful manner, but also go way too far by denying them when they truly are needed to prevent a persons death.
Surgeons on the other hand have become accustomed to using this 'medicine' even though it hasn't been thoroughly tested like blood substitute products have to be tested. On the other hand (how many hands have you got? hehe) many deaths have been prevented by transfusions.
Dont you hate it when people are all reasonable and look at both sides of the issue?
Rachel Nowak is a PhD and has been the Australasian editor of NewScientist for many years. her email is rnowak@newscientist.com.au
I doubt she has any connection to the JWs, but then again, journalists take a lot of information on face value from various sources, so it could be her source information was produced/sponsored by the organisation ... and then again, maybe it is truly becoming apparent that blood isn't the be-all and end-all of medicine, and should be tested by modern methods like double-blind randomised trials to find where it is and isn't useful.
I certainly wouldn't want a blood transfusion in a cholecystectomy (barring some major complications), but I would want one if I had lost most of my blood in a car accident.
So like most of these issues between 'science' and 'religion', often neither are completely right, which is why there is an argument in the first place. JW's have rightly pointed out some of the bad side of blood transfusions, although not in an unbiased and medically helpful manner, but also go way too far by denying them when they truly are needed to prevent a persons death.
Surgeons on the other hand have become accustomed to using this 'medicine' even though it hasn't been thoroughly tested like blood substitute products have to be tested. On the other hand (how many hands have you got? hehe) many deaths have been prevented by transfusions.
Dont you hate it when people are all reasonable and look at both sides of the issue?