Thanks! Notice the guy at 1:25 saying "blood is an organ, a liquid organ" Hmmmmmmmm......makes me think of a certain WT medical policy that allows treatment.
If it's an organ why not allow it, otherwise ban other organ transplants?(referring to wts policy)
Like other organ transplants, blood has risks, but so does driving a car. Like everything, people need to look at the pros and cons of each treatment and try to choose the best possible option for them with the least amount of risk. Just because we would accept blood doesn't mean we're going to a doctor with our sleeves rolled up asking to be injected with blood at the first opportunity we get!
Also, who made the film, and are the quotes cut to fit the producer's idea or are the interviews shown to be long enough within the context?
@ LostGeneration & Diamonddiiz I thought the same thing when Dr Areyah Shandler called it an organ. This Dr Shandler is featured in the JW videos regarding blood and press puff pieces regarding bloodless surgery.
The film is the result of another project called Beijing Goes Bloodless. www.asiageographic.com/productions_pnn.html
The new documentary Primum Non Nocere is set to be released this spring http://www.asiageographic.com/productions_pnn.html
I find it interesting the trailer is being circulated just before their serve-us meeting regarding No Blood. And that these projects are from an Asian production Co.,I say that because a few years back a JW from my old cong was attending the WT language instructors course he said they were told that the WT is focusing on the Chinese and are trying to direct more efforts towards reaching the Chinese especially the immigrants. He said they figured if more Chinese became JW's while abroad it will help gain more ground into China. This was second hand info but seeing this and noticing more Asians in the Learn From God's Word section of the public WT it seems more obvious.
They speak at extreme length about bloodless surgery andnon-blood substitutes,but the uncomfortable truth is that, when humans suffer massive blood loss as a result of the physical trauma of motor vehicle accidents and difficult birthings, blood transfusions are the number one safest, surest option. As a medical colleague said to me, in non-emergency settings, with careful procedure planning and limited invasiveness of surgery, bloodless procedures can be accommodated.
I have yet to read anywhere in the Watchtower's copiously repetitive articles on this subject even one brief acknowledgement that nonblood alternatives are not effective for treatment of physical traumas such as MVAs and hemorraghing.
I think most people would agree that blood transfusions come with a risk. However to say that they do more harm than good is stupid. Why would a doctor give blood if it was not needed or if it would give the individaul more problems in the long run. These days, often just fractions of blood are given. Clearly there is a reason for that. The doctors are just giving what the person actually needs.
There is no question that blood transfusions are dangerous. However like any organ transplant that is dangerous it can prolong a person's life. Yes blood transfusions can harm people but they can also save a person's life.
It should be totally left up to the individual to decide whether he or she want's to accept a blood transfusion and those decisions should not be made out of a guilty conscience because someone says, "God doesn't want you to have a blood transfusion".
The witnesses make their decisions based on what a group of men direct them to do or not do.
The over-emphasis on the known dangers of blood transfusions reflects a very selectively biased view - and is simply adduced to support a shonky religious doctrine forbidding blood transfusions.
If you want to talk about genuine danger to human life, picture an Accident & Emergency department that did not provide blood transfusions and used nonblood alternatives.
Leaving your house via an upstairs bedroom window is dangerous, but if the house is burning down its worth considering.
Steve2 is right - whole fresh blood is still the way to treat major traumatic blood loss.
In any case the blood brochure that was released when I was in made clear that medical safety had NOTHING to do with it. It was an ethical decision not a medical one. The illustration used was that if promiscuous sex was completely safe it would still be wrong.
As a thought experiment ask a JW if it was possible to guarantee the safety of blood 100% would it still be wrong?
Any JW promoting this video to support their position on blood doesn't understand their own beleifs.
We have a drive at our new AJWRB.ORG site for donating blood for Witnesses! Great publicity campaign, as people will finally REALIZE that Jehovah's Witnesses DO take blood transfusions!Time to end the word-game charade. If you still believe their publicity nonsense on "not taking blood," WAKE UP AND MAKE YOUR SAY TO THE MEDIA..
Plus we save lives, help them get out of the WT, and let the public know we are not participating in their scam of defining a "blood transfusion." But we show all the options for those who want to make their own choice. We do not criticize or put the Witness down.
Plus the WATCHTOWER has no reason to be pissed off! It The publicity only makes them hide their policies and when they are not "persecuted" they don't fignt the same way. They are simply at a loss of what to do.
BTW, donate blood for Witnesses! What a better way is there to count your time?
by discreetslave (original)
15 posts by 10 participants
Last post was