RE: blood issue and media.

by avishai 91 Replies latest jw friends


    Okay, I know some of you will get upset but I think this has to be said here. In the above cases where someone lost a loved one because they refused a blood transfusion, will a dr testify to the fact, that had they had the blood transfusion they would have lived? I can't find a dr that is willing to say that. A blood transfusion is a does not guarantee life. I'm sure there are posters here who have had loved ones transfused against their will and died. So I would think in order to carry any weight you would have to have drs willing to testify 100% so and so would have lived had they been transfused....What do you think about that? I think a better poll would be to ask about children, as adults are free to make their own medical decisions.


    P.S. At one time when my husband's hemoglobin was down to 3, the drs tried to get me to sign paperwork to override his...I asked them, if I did so and he recieved the transfusion, would they guarantee me that it would save his life....they said no. (His hemoglobin in that case came back up and he got better....)

  • Gary1914

    Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq. you are absolutely wrongI

    I know of three people who died from refusing blood, all in one congregation. The congregants were not appalled or alarmed. In fact, this was seen as a good thing, an honorable thing, a testiment to their strong spiritual faith. Their families were congratulated for having such strong members that they would die for Jehovah.

    Most Jehovah's Witnesses blindly follow the lead of those in charge, without question, without thought.

    This organization is a Jonestown waiting to happen.

  • skeeter1

    The best case is where the person refused a blood transfusion, but lived to tell the story. This happens when someone has a heart attack, and is quickly revived. It's my understanding that the kidneys are one of the first organs to go, and these people usually need dialysis for the rest of their lives. They can talk.

    The next best case is where the decedent is a child. The parents can testify to how the Society's deception lead them to teach their children the wrong things.

    But, a good case still exists where an adult died. Remember Anna Nicole Smith? She was to get $$$$$ of dough from her old hubby's will. Now, everyone is disputing her husband's signed, notarized, witnessed will. While Anna's case is probably more about coercion/influence...which is also present here with the Watchtower but just not in this article (I don't think as it's title is "misrepresentation"), live people can give evidence about the decedent's mental state. Yes, doctors and family members and anyone could testify to how this person believed "everything" the Society told him, without question, "hook, line, and sinker."

  • AuldSoul


    I know someone the kidney issue happened to. Everyone in the congregation knew she was on dialysis (and eventually had a transplant) but they didn't know why. If I wanted to help her find out about this, there would be statutes of limitation on filing, surely. Shouldn't I also check in my state for statutes of repose?


  • wednesday

    a jws doctor told me that a blood countof 6 hardly qualifes as serious . He should have had it happen to him

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog


    This organization is a Jonestown waiting to happen.

    It is worse than Jonestown and it has already happened!

    And Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq. doesn't want to see it!

    D Dog

  • Gary1914

    After some though, I agree Deputy Dog,

    The blood issue is their Kool Ade.

  • alamb

    I agree with Deputy Dog also. One is too many.

    A side point, I have older issues of blood brochures. Are there any changes from brochure to brochure? I'll check them out tomorrow, just wondering if anyone knows.

  • Oroborus21


    Thanks for the info. I am interested in the phenomenon. My supposition was only that. Others have reported that the event was treated as a shameful one while yours indicates that it was viewed positively.

    Can you tell whether you know if the example of the deaths in your congregation was touted elsewhere in your circuit or locality?

    I think it is important to investigate just how the reaction propagates within the community/JWs and why some cases are viewed negatively and some are viewed positively.

    I wonder if cultural or racial factors are involved or geographic factors.

    It seems that if Witnesses really believe that the death of someone adhering to the blood doctrine was honorable that it would be a tendency to be treated positively - similar perhaps to persecution examples in the oral history and literature.

    But it is surprising to see that the majority of cases are kept private and perhaps even "covered". This might be out of respect for the family and individuals or it could be a subconscious reflex which indicates that the persons inwardly reject the doctrine even if outwardly they manifest acceptance.

    Making a post here on JWD dedicated to tabulating stories and statistics, locations, etc. would be useful in helping all of us to build some data, perhaps more accurately than mere statistical modeling based on inferences that aren't ground in anything.

    One of my theories is that a person who has been touched personally either through direct loss of a family member or via a close friend is more likely to have left the Organization, perhaps not because of the blood doctrine but as a contributory factor. Thus since this forum is a gravitational point for ex-members, I would expect a higher concentration of reported cases here on JWD than if we were able to just conduct a sampling of all active Witnesses.

    Still even with this potential flaw building a record wouldn't hurt.

    There is also another important reason why it would be a good idea and that is not too forget the victims of this terrible doctrine. A "Memorial" website would serve these purposes and also perhaps garner some media attention to the issue. And of course touching persons wiht a real face and name is one of the best ways to make an impact on active Witnesses.

    Of course there are privacy concerns and these would have to be addressed.

    I saw one poster mention that he would like to see a doctor's certification that a blood transfusion would have saved these people's lives.

    I don't actually see that as relevant in the big picture. First such an opinion would only be speculative, as whether a blood transfusion would have saved the person or not is really an X factor, though it would be more likely than no treatment right.

    I think that a modest disclaimer on the site or post along these lines would suffice: "it is not known for certain whether a blood transfusion would have saved the person's life but given that the field of medicine agrees that the administration of blood as appropriate is the standard of care, it is more likely than not that the person's condition would have been positively affected by the adminstration of blood."

    -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

    PS: CBehind. I think you have misunderstood my feelings. There would need to be many more changes than just the blood policy to lure me back. I hope that these changes will occur because I do believe and accept certain teachings and I appreciate certain facets of the culture. I also have family and friends who are Witnesses and would appreciate being in communion with them again.

    Whether the changes that I hope for and am workng for will occur in my life time I don't know. But I believe that they will and that these changes are inf fact inevitable if the Organization and religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is to survive into the later half of this century.

    Yes, in this sense I may be different than many on this board who only desire the complete destruction of the religion.

  • AuldSoul
    Whether the changes that I hope for and am workng for will occur in my life time I don't know. But I believe that they will and that these changes are inf fact inevitable if the Organization and religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is to survive into the later half of this century.
    ...based on inferences that aren't ground[ed] in anything.

    It is good to dream. You may as well dream big.


Share this