Merit of Non-Blood Medical Treatment

by billyboy 10 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • billyboy

    How do posters feel about the physicians , doctors , surgeons and others giving their experiences and views in the Societies videos and DVDs?

    Is the prevailing view that these are amateurs and/or stooges who do not represent mainstream medical opinion? Or do some posters feel that these clinicians maybe have some justification for their views?

  • mrsjones5

    Even though I have been associated with the jws all my life I have never seen one of their videos...I don't think I missed much. lol


  • DannyBloem

    That is a hard question, billyboy.

    We know from so many things that the society only used things that suits them. Other opinions and facts are completely ignored. So, I would not think that those video's are 100% honest, or without bias.

    But then some of the doctors in those videos are probably respected doctors. It is difficult to tell if the quotes that the WTS uses are really there whole quotes or only a part of it, and there whole overall view is not exactly the same.

    There are probably some merits of non blood threatment. I would if I have the choice prefer without blood. But that is only if those would have equal probabilities of recovery.

    The big problem in my view hoewever is that many witnesses think that using blood will kill you more probably then that you life. That using blood is really medical wrong, can never save your life, etc. In this way, they make ignorant deccisions, what are utmost important. That is the biggest problem with the video's.

    What do you think, billyboy?


  • Balsam

    There is nothing wrong with doctors working to fine alternative ways to treating JW with their skills. Not a single doctor on the newest DVD endorsed JW stand on blood. And if we talked to them directly they would say that in an emergency that none of these things would be useful in saving a life. But in surgeries they are a good alternative but JW restriction on storing blood makes it extra difficult for them. I have seen the DVD and it is impressive but it clearly does not tell the whole story. Nothing they presented will save a life if faced with an emergency. JW continue to delude themselves with these DVD recordings that they are just fine without blood. There is no defence of their refusal for blood that amounts to anything on the recording.

    Mary at aka Balsam

  • hawkaw

    I think AJWRB summed the video clips up nicely in this newletter.

  • billyboy

    Danny asked for my views which I suspect are different to many on this forum.

    Personally I feel that there is a strong medical case for non - blood medical treatment. The excellent website and other resources would seem to support forms of treatment that would be acceptable to many witnesses. It is difficult to dismiss the clinicians who appear on the DVDs , as many ex-witnesses do.

    Having said that , some JWs do go "over the top" and assume that the medical establishment is very much anti-blood transfusion. I have to tell them this isn't the case.

  • skeeter1

    Let me ask you some questions.

    Would you trust an answer where the actor may have been paid for his opinion?

    Would you trust an answer where you can not hear the question that was asked?

    Would you trust an answer where you can not hear the full answer (i.e. the editing department "cut" material)?

    Knowing how the Society twists secular writers who wrote in medical journals which can be verified, what makes youthink you can trust the Society to produce an accurate DVD where the medical doctor may be paid for his "testimony", where the answer you hear may not be to the question asked, and where the answer you "think" you hear may have been cut & pasted?

  • jwfacts

    There is great merit in non blood treatment for many cases. Just like there is great merit in not taking antibiotics for every illness, and over prescription of antibiotics has caused a global crisis with superbugs. However, antibiotics are necessary for life and death matters. Blood is also sometimes necessary for life and death situtions.
    The WTS throws in a red herring argument by saying;
    "These doctors say that surgury can be performed without blood"
    diverting peoples attention from the issue that there are occasional circumstances where blood is necessary, and the freedom for a JW to choose the appropriate treatment has been taken from them.

  • BluesBrother

    I am sure that the great majority of medical people would love to be able to drop blood transfusions and use alternative substances that did not need matching and human donors, and all that that entails.

    I would much prefer to go bloodless if I were having elective surgery , but if I were caught in an accident and I was in a near death state ?? Yes. I will take it

  • dinah

    Just my opinion, and I'm no doctor, but I do think it is more healthy to avoid blood if possible.

    When I was a teen I had to have a spinal fusion for scoliosis. The surgery lasted about 8 hours, and I didn't require a transfusion. My doctor lowered my body temperature, and used a cell saver. This surgeon was awesome! He has written textbooks in Orthopedics and is very talented. He told my mother and I that many times blood transfusions are used because of "sloppy surgeons"--those were his exact words, I remember them.

    He also told my parents (my Dad is not JW) that he would not let me die in the OR if something unforeseen happened. He had my blood crossed and typed just in case. But he assured us he didn't foresee any problems. After surgery my blood count was very low, so he kept me on IV fluids and iron. He was very pleased with how quickly I recovered. I was very happy I didn't die. :)

Share this