Coincidence? August Awake! - BLOOD - Why So Valuable?

by truthseeker 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  truthseeker

  Is it any coincidence that the Society have made the main article in the August 2006 Awake! about blood?

  What with Shunned Father's lawsuit, and Kerry's article on the misrepresentation of blood by the Watchtower, it strikes me as too convenient for WTS to have a whole article on blood.

  A quick summary

  Front Cover: Picture of human body showing veins, arteries and the heart with the title "BLOOD Why So Valuable?"

  Page 3 - What Is The Most Precious Fluid Of All?

  subheadings

  A Unique Organ

  Page 4 - TRANSFUSION MEDICINE - Is Its Future Secure?

  subheadings

  Disease-Free Blood - A Moving Target

  Mistakes and Transfusion Reactions

  Experts Speak Out

  Will Medicine Change?

  Page 8 - The Composition of Blood

  A whole two pages on the components and fractions of blood

  PLASMA 52-62% of blood

  water is 91.5% of plasma

  proteins 7% of plasma

  other substances 1.5%

  WHITE BLOOD CELLS

  1% of blood

  PLATELETS

  1% of blood

  RED BLOOD CELLS

  38-48% of blood (These cells keep tissue alive by bringing oxygen to it and taking carbon dioxide away)

  Can the same be said of saline solution or any other volume expander?

  Page 10 - The Real Value of BLOOD

  picture of 5 very young children with the caption "The global community shares a common life source: blood. It is the life force in all

  human beings, regardless of colour, race or religion." - President of the General Assembly of the United Nations

  subheadings

  Our Creator and Blood

  So, while acknowledging that blood is very valuable and even quoting from a UN source, they then tell you that God doesn't want you to have any to keep you alive.

  How sick is that?
• 

  truthseeker

  It's also ironic, that the smallest components of blood are the ones that they ban for JW's.
• 

  candidlynuts

  does it mention if any components are ok for jw's to accept now?
• 

  truthseeker

  The article briefly mentions taking fractions is a personal decision but has to be seriously weighed bla bla bla,

  The Awake magazine is for non dubs who won't know that "conscience matter" and "stumbling our brothers" is in the WT when referring to blood fractions.
• 

  sf

  Another thread on same topic with discussion:

  Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers - August 2006 Awake!

  sKally
• 

  nicolaou

  Does it really state that platelets make up 1% of the composition of blood?

  I thought it was less than one fifith of one percent?!
• 

  jwfacts

  This is damage control. By stating that even more blood components are conscience matters they remove legal liability from themselves and put it on the shoulders of individual members. That way the member can not sue the WTS if they refuse blood.

  Hemopure and Polyheme are made from blood. Notice that the article strongly cautions against using these new oxygen carrying blood substitutes but then says it is up to the individual conscience.
• 

  Stephanus

  subheadings

  A Unique Organ

  The first time I've seen them use this term. Interesting. Could they be clearing the way to eventually admit that a blood transfusion is nothing more than an organ transplant, and that it's okay to have one?
• 

  Jourles

  Stephanus -

  Actually, I've always wondered if using the "organ" position would give them the open door to allow blood transfusions. For years, the WTS has looked favorably upon Dr. Denton Cooley for performing bloodless surgeries. They even have him quoted as saying:

  ***

  g90 10/22 p. 9 Gift of Life or Kiss of Death? ***

  As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: "A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. . . . I think that there are certain incompatibilities in almost all blood transfusions."

  As we all know, organ transplants are a matter of conscience(and also contain more WBC's in the tissue than in the bloodstream). It only makes sense that this is the excuse they would use. Why would they refer to blood as being an "organ" in this latest Awake? With the AJWRB, the blood essay and Shunned Father making waves these past years, I can see the WTS prepping the r&f with these little keywords. Even in the 1990 Awake above, I don't know what to make of them using that quote of Dr. Cooley's. It's almost as if they were trying to open a loophole back then. I am even more surprised that they would put the percentages of WBC's and platelets! Two supposed "major" components.

  My alarm bells are really going off. I think I see new light on the horizon. As far as what it will end up being is anyone's guess. But if I were them and I was trying to gradually allow transfusions(read: make it a conscience decision), I would definitely use the "organ" tactic. Use one of the greatest bloodless surgery doctors in the world as your reference and viola!, you have your basis to make it allowable. No scriptures necessary.
• 

  Jourles

  And another reference to it being an "organ" ---

  ***

  g99 8/22 p. 31 Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary? ***

  LAST November the above question was raised in a newspaper article written by Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York. He wrote: "Today blood would probably not be approved as a medication, since it would not fulfill safety criteria of the Food and Drug Administration. Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant."

  Sure, the negative connotations about blood transfusions are there, but they still allowed the quote to be in the Awake.

  As with any allowables in the past, the WTS usually has warned its readers about the negative side effects of the procedures. That is why they let the reader use their own "conscience." It puts the legal onus on the r&f, not the WTS.