Your 'statement' is meaningless. Put some definition to it.
Hi again, Pork ChopI doubt the parents of 14-year-old Adrian Yeatts[1] would agree with your sentiment. Adrian’s life was not meaningless. On the other hand, his untimely demise provided deathly meaning to the Watchtower’s policy on partial blood abstention. The same can be said for:12-year-old Lenae Martinez[1]17-year-old Crystal Moore[1]12-year-old Lisa Kosack[1]17-year-old Ernestine Gregory[1]As for my own statement, its meaning is sure: following Watchtower policy leads to death when it prohibits lifesaving medical therapy. Do you disagree with this clear meaning? From Dr. Kaaron Benson’s report in Cancer Control Journal[2]: "Of the nine patients reviewed at our center who had indications for blood transfusion and refused blood, one died of anemia and thrombocytopenia, and one had a cerebrovascular accident. Of the 58 oncology patients studied, 10 had limited treatments due to their refusal of blood and presumably suffered longterm adverse consequences due to that restricted therapy." Both anemia and thrombocytopenia are correctable with blood transfusion. So, in Dr. Benson’s retrospective review 1 of 9 patients died (11%) as a direct result of refusing blood therapy. Furthermore, 10 of the 58 patients had limited treatment for their cancer due to the same reason. I would say "limited" treatment for cancer has strong meaning for those suffering it. ----[1] Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Youths Who Have "Power Beyond What Is Normal", Awake May 22, 1994[2] Kaaron Benson, Management of the Jehovah's Witness Oncology Patient: Perspective of the Transfusion Service, Cancer Control Journal Volume 2 Number 6 November/December 1995