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.