I have a question about the blood video

blindersoff

During the week of Jan 30 at the Service Meeting, the Society's video "A Video That Highlights an Important Medical Trend" will be discussed using the 12 questions listed below. Does any one know if any of the information in this particular video is mis-quoted or mis-represented? Notice that none of these questions involve scriptures - only medical viewpoints. IF the JW belief is based on "scriptural reasons" and not medical, why aren't there more references to scriptures? Note that these questions are taken directly from the January KM.

1. Why are some in the medical community reevaluating the use of blood transfusions?

2. Give three examples of complex surgeries that may be performed without blood transfusions.

3. How many physicians and surgeons worldwide have indicated their willingness to treat patients without blood transfusions?

4. What have recent hospital studies revealed about blood use?

5. What are the medical risks associated with blood transfusions?

6. What conclusions have many experts reached regarding the benefits of transfusion alternatives?

7. What causes anemia? How tolerable is it in humans? What can be done to compensate for it?

8. How can red-cell production be stimulated in a patient's body?

9. What techniques are being used to minimize blood loss during surgery?

10. Can transfusion alternatives work for young children or for people involved in life-threatening emergencies?

11. What is one of the primary ethical principles of good medical care?

12. Why is it important for Christians to make nonblood treatment choices in advance? How can we do this?

IF the Society had just stuck to the scriptures - not adding to or taking away - and stated that JW's don't take blood because of the scriptural admonition at Acts 15:28, 29, they would not be facing a problem now. But, it is when they claim to be God's mouthpiece and what the faithful slave says is equal in importance to what the Apostle Paul said, is when they get in trouble. To misrepresent facts in a life and death situation for the purpose of cementing a doctrine is reprehensible.

Axelspeed

I would hold on to that KM....and that video.

Axel

jgnat

You've got it, blindersoff. I agree. If they'd stuck to scriptural reasons I wouldn't protest.

But they muddy the waters by pretending that abstaining from blood transfusions aren't hazardous to your health.

jgnat

In response to question 7, the exerpt from our Big News essay says the following:

Most surgeries do not require blood transfusions. Some surgeries, such as coronary bypass, hip or knee replacement, hepatic resections [liver surgery], and radical prostatectomy [prostrate removal], are a higher risk.[28] The pamphlet states that bloodless surgeries are safe and quotes as support a study by Dixon B. Kaufman concerning renal (kidney) transplants: "The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah’s Witness patients."[29] More telling, however, is the self-incriminating information that the Society omitted (emphasis on Society’s actual quote):

Jehovah Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 percent at three months in Jehovah’s Witnesses versus 44 percent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah’s Witness who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 per cent) – two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah Witness patients but those with anemia who undergo early rejection episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients.[30]

Since the pamphlet dedicates pages to anemia, why did the Society omit that the almost double rates for organ rejection as well as the study’s clarification that "those with anemia" are a high risk group? (emphasis mine)

Kudra

Well, just from my 1 or 2 days of reading the big news post and other replies on this board, I can answer most of those "video questions (i.e. what have recent hospital studies revealed about blood... + what are the medical risks associated with blood transfusions... etc) from the blurb from the baylor institute. Kinda makes me want to show up a the KH and go for one last "comment".

Ingenuous

blindersoff -

From the looks of the excerpts, if you get a copy of the article, you should be able to raise your hand and give some very interesting comments on questions 4 through 7 and 10.

blindersoff

Does any one know if any of the information in this particular video is mis-quoted or mis-represented?

IT Support

I don't suppose anyone has a transcript of the video? I have a feeling it might become extremely valuable evidence ...

Justitia Themis

Does any one know if any of the information in this particular video is mis-quoted or mis-represented? I am writing my paper on the mature minor doctrine and JWs. I am using some of the information from the Tort of Misprepresentation law article which documents the Watchtower's misleading use of scholarly quotes. However, her research focuses on the old Blood Brochure. Has anyone checked for accuracy the quotes in any of the videos? If so, can you point me in the direction of that research?

Thanks, JT

Vidqun

I'm sorry, but I have some bad news for you. It makes 100% sense to refuse a blood transfusion. Let me put it to you this way: If you or a family member is involved in an accident, say in Africa. Would you take blood or allow a family member to be tranfused? I know I will not, over my dead body. I'll take my chances without it. Then, while in Africa, ask any person involved in the Medical profession, whether they will take blood, or allow a family member to take blood. They will answer: Never. Why?

If you have been to these bakward places, like Africa, you will know the standards are not very high. There the doctors bury their mistakes. First of all, there are compatibility issues. Not two people's blood are the same. Your blood is as unique as your finger prints. ABO and Rh+ or - are major antigens. The rest they do not take into consideration because they seldom cause problems. How sure are you that the technician did a proper job when he tested for them? The manual method is especially dicey, because you must continue shaking the tube to see if the blood coagulates. If you shake too hard, the blood cells break up, and could cause a false positive.

Secondly, there's a pandora's box of diseases you can acquire, especially in Africa and the tropics. How do you know the blood they are going to put in your veins is not contaminated? Stored blood also have an expiry date. How do you know that expiry date is not long gone?

As far as I know, studies did prove that those people that were not transfused (e.g. JWs) recover quicker from major operations and that they have less infections. Remeber, when any foreign antigen is introduced into the bloodstream, the immune system will react against it. So the immune system of people that were not transfused can concentrate on the job at hand and does not have to fight foreign invaders.

Please take note. The above is from a medical and not a religious persective.

I asked my Physiology Professor about it, and he remarked that blood was like dynamite. If you don't treat it correctly, it will kill you.

I have a question about the blood video

Share this