Full Text of New Blood Video

by grey matters 19 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • grey matters
    grey matters

    A NEW STANDARD

    A growing number of health care providers are willing

    to meet the challenge of treating patients who avoid

    blood transfusions.

    Prof. Roland Hetzer: "With the development of all

    those techniques, there's nothing really specific

    about Jehovah's Witnesses anymore. We know that they

    don't want blood transfusions and we have the

    technology to follow their wish."

    Dr. Stephen M. Cohn: "The belief that you don't want

    a blood transfusion should not in any way . . . that

    should be a tiny part of the whole medical care

    environment. That should be acknowledged—put over to

    the side, fine—now to the other 99 percent of your

    care!"

    Major Spry—JW spokesman: "I guess it could be likened

    to a patient who is allergic to penicillin. You

    wouldn't expect the physician to say, 'Well, I'm

    sorry, I can't treat you because I can't administer

    penicillin.' No, he simply says, 'We'll give you a

    medical alternative. We'll give you another

    antibiotic.' Then he gets on with treating the

    patient."

    Narrator: This enlightened approach to patient care

    has exciting implications for the public at large.

    Dr. Stephen M. Cohn: "The fact that we couldn't use

    blood in Jehovah's Witnesses, we learned how we

    didn't have to use blood in many other situations.

    So, it has actually propelled us in the right

    direction."

    Dr. Richard K. Spence: "Transfusion alternatives

    clearly, are good medical practice. Sound practice—

    safe practice, for a patient."

    Dr. Linda Shehling: "Indeed it is a standard that

    should be available to all patients."

    Dr. Peter Carmel: "What we're talking about here is

    going to be a mute point, because bloodless medicine

    and surgery will become in the next 5 to 10 years, so

    widespread that, it won't be novel anymore."

    Eugene Rosam—JW spokesman: "Jehovah's Witnesses have

    had the unique privilege, because of their religious

    position on the matter, of helping doctors learn

    better ways to treat patients without subjecting them

    to the risks of blood transfusions."

    Prof. Charles H. Baron: "What I have seen in my own

    experience is that they have turned the medical

    profession around, where the gold standard, is to

    treat people without blood."

    Narrator: Already some 100,000 physicians worldwide,

    are making bloodless medicine and surgery available

    to anyone who does not want a blood transfusion. Many

    experts agree that in the new future medicine and

    surgery without the use of blood transfusions will

    become the standard of care for all patients.

    "There are now available, techniques in almost every

    sub-specialty of surgery and medicine that allow

    bloodless treatment, so that we are getting away from

    blood transfusions in general."

    "As a heart surgeon, I guess it's unusual for a guy

    not to like blood, he should like blood, but I

    don't—I'm very proud when my patient comes out of the

    operation room, and has not received any

    transfusion."

    "I can see within the next few years, us getting to a

    point of where we do not have to even think about

    getting blood."

    [THE END]

  • Gill
    Gill

    To begin with there are two items I take exception to.

    1) That 80% of people would refuse a blood transfusion nowadays. Whose ass was this figure pulled from. I don't see them quoting a poll that was taken to produce those figures. Is there one and how many polls were taken. Were the people also asked if they would choose to die rather than have a transfusion?

    2) That a surgeon whose patient loses little blood in an operation is a good and careful surgeon. A surgeon whose patient loses a lot of blood is the reverse. Now there are operations that are inevitably massively bloody such as neurosurgery and major heart surgery. This does not make surgeons who take on these riskly surgeries bad surgeons. Bleeding is the nature of the beast in these surgeries and cannot always be prevented or stopped.

  • Gill
    Gill

    Also, they haven't tackled the problem of 'trauma'.

    In a trauma situation, a JW doesn't have the luxury of topping up their iron levels, taking EPO for several weeks etc.

    Basically, in a massive bleeding even in trauma, a Jehovah's Witness patient is stuffed!

    How come they didn't mention that in some occassions, massive blood transfusion of up to 30 + units are the only way to save a life? If you refuse blood in such circumstances you have been manouvered into a suicide.

  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    The only thing good about the JW blood rule is that it along with AIDS/Hepatitis/Mad cow disease (JWs are in natural company-nobody wants any of that stuff in their home!) has forced the medical profession to find alternatives to the traditional transfusion. That doesn't make their stance any more correct, any more than promiscuous sex, IV drug use, or diseased cows are a desirable reason for finding alternatives to blood transfusions) The stance is irrational, and none of those things are good for your health or happiness from the get go!

  • SirNose586
    SirNose586

    In a trauma situation, a JW doesn't have the luxury of topping up their iron levels, taking EPO for several weeks etc.

    Basically, in a massive bleeding even in trauma, a Jehovah's Witness patient is stuffed!

    How come they didn't mention that in some occassions, massive blood transfusion of up to 30 + units are the only way to save a life? If you refuse blood in such circumstances you have been manouvered into a suicide.

    Reminds me of the video that Danny showed us of this elderly JW couple who got into a car accident. The husband died that night, and the wife followed in about a week.

  • Gill
    Gill

    JWdaughter - I agree with you that the blood treatments are best avoided IF POSSIBLE! But, it is not alway possible. Sometimes blood is the ONLY way! To dismiss it is sheer suicide and lunacy!

    The WTBTS can continue to paint itself as the brains behind bloodless surgery and the pushing force behind it, but in the end it is also the insane 'brain' that insists on death from its members instead of a life saving blood transfusion in a bad bleeding event trauma! Sheer suicide!

    Lets not forget the real statistics that a JW mother is ten times more likely to die in childbirth in a developed country than a non JW mother!

    I wonder why they didn't mention that?

  • carla
    carla

    Any videos out there to counter this one?

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    It’s amazing to observe this theatrical production of the WTS’. Not a single one of the licensed doctors interviewed would sit in front of a peer group and say that blood products prohibited under the WTS’ blood doctrine are never medically necessary to prevent premature death. The published works by the same doctors in peer reviewed medical journals prove this point. Yet the WTS finds a way to edit a video making it sound like these guys are behind the WTS’ blood doctrine as a matter of good medical practice. It lying 101.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Gill
    Gill

    Proffessor Oliver Guillod says in this video:

    I believe that the basic element of patient's rights is the right of self determination. That is, the right of any patient to decide what shall be done to his or her own body.'

    Does the good professor know that the WTBTS until 2000 automatically Disfellowshiped any JW who took a blood transfusion? Did the WTBTS give such 'self determination' rights to its slaves?

    Does the professor know that from the year 2000, any JW who took blood would be considered Disassociated and no longer one of Jehovah's Witness and therefore would lose all contact with lifelong family and friends?

    While the WTBTS tries to weasel itself into good books of eminent surgeons, does it reveal that it does NOT allow 'self determination' for its slaves but demands total obedience on pain of shunning.

    Perhaps the Professor should be made aware of the fact that he has been tricked by the WTBTS and then it would be interesting to hear what he had to say on the subject on self determination and blood transfusions in life and death situations!

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    I agree with Marvin Shilmer. I did some quick Interenet (thanks to Al Gore who invented the Internet) research on some of these doctors. None of these doctors would agree to refuse blood to all patients, and these doctors & professor do not agree with the JW dogma.

    Some of the quoted "professors" are law professors, including Charles H. Baron who said : "What I have seen in my own experience is that they have turned the medical profession around, where the gold standard, is to treat people without blood." I'm sure Mr. Baron is a smart man, but does the video disclose that he is not a medical doctor & his experience is from a lawyer's perspective?

    The doctors in the video do not appear to be 100% against transfusions in every situation, and some of their paper topics appear to tout blood transfusions. It would be interesting to contact them. For example, Dr. Lawrence T. Goodnough talks about autologous blood transfusions (i.e. storing your own blood). Last time I checked, this was saving one's own blood was not an option for JWs.

    Latest Paper:

    Curr Opin Hematol. 2006 Nov ;13:462-70 17053460

    Objectives and limitations of bloodless medical care.

    [My paper] Aryeh Shander , Lawrence T Goodnough

    PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To outline the rationale, limitations, and execution of bloodless medical and surgical programs, highlighting characteristics that contribute to successful outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical experiences with patients who refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons have provided valuable lessons and raise intriguing questions about the necessity of routine blood transfusions. Healthcare centers with bloodless medicine and surgery programs feature a novel concept of patient care aimed at improving outcomes. A one-tiered approach to minimize blood usage for all patients, regardless of religious beliefs, is being successfully adopted at an increasing number of institutions. Since most single blood-conservation techniques reduce blood usage by just 1-2 units, a series of integrated preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative conservation approaches is required. These include preoperative autologous donation, erythropoietic support, acute normovolemic hemodilution, individualized assessment of anemia tolerance, implementation of conservative transfusion thresholds, meticulous surgical techniques, and judicious use of phlebotomy and pharmacologic agents for limiting blood loss. SUMMARY: The objectives of bloodless medicine and surgery programs are straightforward but require staff with expertise in transfusion medicine, intensive teamwork, patient-specific customization, careful planning, and integrated use of multimodal strategies.

    Also, did you notice the Narrator stated:"Fibrin glue made from blood fractions stimulates coagulation upon contact." Hmmmm, is that really "bloodless" then?

    Skeeter

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit