by PoppyR 16 Replies latest watchtower medical
a sister sent me this link via email, and I found it threw me all over again. I just dont know what to think about the whole blood transfusion issue.
It's a NHS site.. (for US etc, thats government health, not witness related AT ALL) and seems to be backing up totally the WT thing about blood being dangerous.
I want some other opinions, it's one JW belief I dont know what to think about!
Poppy xx
As with any surgical procedure there are risks. Health organizations would naturally want to minimize risks as much as possible. These are legitimate concerns.
But the WTS's has the ability to make a huge mountain out of a molehill. If the WTS's blood policy is a spiritual issue then they should not be relying on medical information to back up their policy.
Poppy, this is not at all the same thing. You have likely read this article from a place of fear... started by the WT influences. The WT insinuates that blood transfusion is always medically bad. This article merely states the well-known fact that there are risks associated with this treatment... just like with many other treatments.
The real question is whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits. The WTS inaccurately portrays the risks of transfusion therapies. The facts are that transfusion, though not without risks, is the best therapy available for certain conditions such as extremely low red blood count, or clotting conditions, or immunity factors, even when the risks are considered as part of the equation.
Read some articles on some of the more popular drug therapies on the market. You will find similar risks, but without the religious fear-mongering.
Lady Lee has said it well.
Though I am no longer a witness, I will consider carefully all options should a transfusion issue arise. That is because blood transfusions carry risks. They always have, and always will. The witnesses have that part correct.
What they have incorrect is the charge that it is scripturally wrong. The single text they point to is taken out of context and misapplied.
I want some other opinions, it's one JW belief I dont know what to think about!
PoppyR - please go to www.ajwrb.org and review the arguments there for a balanced perspective on this. And for goodness sakes, do think about this issue before it is a serious moment with no time to develop an opinion.
Jeff
PoppyR
The information at the Hospitals and Science Website is up to date and not at all backing up what the WTS teaches.
Clinicians and researchers have known practically from day one that blood transfusions carry hazards. The same is true of any invasive medical procedure; hence the need to pursue safer therapeutic alternatives to lessen the opportunity of transmitting pathogens. But this is not what the WTS teaches. The WTS teaches that allogeneic blood transfusions should never be accepted by JWs, regardless of whether this is the only viable medical therapeutic to prevent premature death.
The Hospitals and Science Website wisely recommends “creating greater awareness of the need to alter and improve transfusion practice.” But NOWHERE does it suggest letting patients die prematurely rather than use a blood therapy forbidden by the WTS. Additionally, the WTS forbids JWs from predonating their own blood for future surgery, yet the Hospitals and Science Website presents this as a safer alternative and one that should be considered.
Aside from the Hospitals and Science Website, the WTS is entirely deceptive when it claims JWs are protected from diseases such as AIDS as a result of adhering to its Blood Doctrine. This is because all the blood products the WTS allows JWs to accept without repercussion carry diseases too! (Read more at: http://www.jwtruth.com/articles/BloodWTExposed.aspx )
Marvin Shilmer
Please be sure to check out: WWW.AJWRB.ORG
The information you get there is sound and dependable. I'm a volunteer for Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.
Balsam aka [email protected]
Being as I work in the NHS, perhaps I might be able to give an NHS perspective.
Where possible blood transfusion is avoided. It's always been known that there are risks attached to it's use. In many cases there really is little alternative, though, as nothing transports oxygen and carbon dioxide as well as red blood cells. Medicine continues to advance and new drugs and treatments become available all the time. Due to this the need for blood transfusion is becoming less and less but it has not yet been eliminated.
In the case of anticipated major surgery the use of autologous blood (your own blood extracted and stored in readiness for the operation) is a prefered option, as there are few rejection and infection risks above those that you already carry yourself. This, however, is unfortunately one that the JWs won't accept even though they will happily suck a wound or pick and eat their own scabs as children
Thank you for your responses, and yes the reason I posted is because I DO want to make an informed decision BEFORE it becomes a life and death issue, but it's so hard to be informed with so much crap still in my head from 36 years as a JW and about 6 months not!!
I will check out the sites you linked to, thank you.
poppy xx
(I'm not a medical expert, and I'm sure this analogy isn't perfect, but here goes...)
A non-autologous blood transfusion is essentially a type of transplant. Someone else's blood is being transplanted into your body.
If someone has a diseased liver, or kidney, or heart, the doctors will try to operate on it. Transplants have a lot of downsides, and they are a last resort, when other measures are inadequate.
But just because they're a last resort, it doesn't mean you wouldn't get a transplant if it was your only hope!
Same thing with blood. It's better not to use it if it's not truly necessary. But sometimes, it's life-saving.
RED CROSS DOESN'T MAKE MONEY ON BLOOD always follow the money trail,blood banking is a pain in the ass for the RC they are not in it for the money.
