Bloodplates... Can it Really be Justified?

by mrbunyrabit 51 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Cirkeline

  I am sure the GB know that they're on the wrong path according to blood. But so much at stake!

  All the suffering R&F's who have lost their loved ones or are struggeling with conditions where blood is needed in treatment. It would be like opening Pandoras Box! They have to make bloodtransfutions legal veeery slow and over a long time to prevent too many legal cases.

  They know what they're doing. Making more and more of it a consciens matter over time and then, many years from now, write articles with "new light" explaining why blood-transfusions is ok according to bible.

  Seen it before? I think so!
• 

  ScenicViewer

  Cirkeline said,

  "They have to make blood transfutions legal veeery slow and over a long time to prevent too many legal cases."

  I believe you are right about that. The Society seems to be in a state of transition over the blood issue. It's already ok to take many blood components that were banned in the past, and in 60 or 70 years the whole blood issue will likely be dead, just like the ban on vaccination. Stemming the flow of lawsuits is probably the reason for taking small, incremental steps forward.

  Watchtower has been so clever at controling information that most Witnesses are not aware of the Society's past views on medical issues. These days though, with the proliferation of the internet and electronic media, making information readily available, the organization will have a much tougher time controlling what people know. The Society's ban on blood transfusion will not be forgotten as easily as other issues from the past.
• 

  Cirkeline

  Watchtower has been so clever at controling information that most Witnesses are not aware of the Society's past views on medical issues. These days though, with the proliferation of the internet and electronic media, making information readily available, the organization will have a much tougher time controlling what people know.

  Yes, ScenicViewer,

  Thank God (or what ever) for the internet!
• 

  Dogpatch

  Cofty says,

  1 - Fresh whole blood is still being transfused every day in emergency departments, including the most modern centres in the developed world. If you are rushed to casualty (A&E, ER) having lost a lot of blood in a car crash or other accident whole blood is still the industry standard. Even Ron Lapin the best friend the borg ever had regarding bloodless surgery made this point very clear. Blood factions are used in the vast majority of treatments but it is recently donated fresh blood that will save a life in a major trauma and JWs still face this dilemma.

  2 - Even if the service dept are trying to move away from the blood ban - and I agree this is likely - there is no sign of this message filtering down to r&f elders yet. If a JW accepts a trasfusion for themsleves or their child in an emergency and is honest enough to say they don't regret doing so they will still be DF'd or DA'd by the local plods will they not?

  Response:

  Of course in some emergencies they can't take the time to clean the blood. Not all blood types are always on hand ready anyway. That's why I stated that as an exception, remember? Whole blood is DANGEROUS to transfuse, and the Red Cross obviously knows that more than any JW.

  Of course, you were probably never at Bethel. They won't tell the elders anything they don't absolutely need to know. They call the dreaded...

  SERVICE DEPT.

  Who usually gives very different responses than in the magazines or even the elder's school. If you haven't watched this in action, which you couldn't unless you were at Bethel, you would never know. That's the MIND CONTROL.

  Randy
• 

  cofty

  OK so let's say somebody accepts a blood transfusion in an emergency and the BofE assign two elders to investigate. The person says to them that he doesn't regret accepting the transfusion as he would be dead without it and would do the same again. Why would the BofE contact the service department before they went ahead and announced the person had DF'd themself by their actions?

  PS - could you stop calling me mind controlled please?
• 

  Dogpatch

  Cofty, I did not call you mind-controlled. Reread my post please.

  I am saying that most ex-cult members still in the end believe much of what the WT says and think the same way long after they left. Same with any group, that's why we have AA and thousands of other recovery groups.

  When have you ever heard of the scenario you mention? That would be interesting. Any case would most likely involve other sins the WT will disassociate you for, like smoking or celebrating Christmas.

  Another example of cultspeak is the new policy on disassociation. You don't "disassociate yourself" from an organization by an action contrary to their teachings. THEY are the ones that shun you and no doubt have a pink card at Bethel in their files on you, showing the new standing they have assigned to you. Who is doing the cutting off? You, or the Watchtower? But they want you to believe a lie, and use it for many legal purposes.

  BTW the WT (at least when I was there) doesn't keep a list of all JWs. Just the ones they kicked out, whether they call it disassociation, disfellowshipping, or whatever. You have a pink card at Bethel (probably all on computer now no doubt).

  Randy
• 

  garyneal

  marking
• 

  TD

  Interesting...

  Someone in a position to do so once searched the records and found only one judicial case involving organ transplantation during the entire period they were 'forbidden.' They told me (In private conversation) that no action was taken in that case.

  I wonder if there is a history of toothlessness behind JW doctrines which prohibit certain medical treatments?
• 

  cofty

  I agree with you about the semantics of course but are you saying that local bodies of elders have received instructions to contact HQ before taking action against somebody who has unrepentently taked a transfusion?

  The scenario I described seems realistic, JWs do have medical emergencies and sometimes they take blood which the elders might find out about. Its not impossible they would be honest enough to admit they don't regret it especially if it involved a child. What happens next?

  As an elder I would have expected to deal with it locally like any other case.
• 

  mrbunyrabit

  Hey there cofty

  I read throught that last post you said i should look through and did find it interesting.

  I went to the meeting again today, and asked one of the elders about that scripture ( Lev.17:11-onwards) Where it says you can eat a dead animal that you found dead. (and the people doing that werent killed)

  I got a responce, that was kinda understandible. That at the end of Lev17 it says that any one not washing their clothes, etc they will be held responsible.

  So it wasnt a good thing to do, there may have been other curcmstances that time (being the oldddd times not having guns and fridges or what ever reason) so God could have understanded that one, at that time

  But in todays times, we have to keep away from even the smallest bad thing. (the eating of a dead animal is one of them)

  What do you think