by skeeter1 61 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • skeeter1


    Finally, here's another JW who ACTUALLY accepted Polyheme. http://www.google.com/search?q=jehovah%27s+witness+and+polyheme&hl=en&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2005-06,GWYA:en&start=30&sa=N

    I've got to get ready for my superbowl party. Go Colts.

    : Transfusion. 2002 Nov;42(11):1422-7. Links

    Comment in:
    Transfusion. 2003 Feb;43(2):280-7.

    Polymerized human Hb use in acute chest syndrome: a case report.

    • Lanzkron S ,
    • Moliterno AR ,
    • Norris EJ ,
    • Gould SA ,
    • Segal J ,
    • Nuermberger EL ,
    • Ness PM .

    Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. slanzkr@jhmi.edu

    BACKGROUND: Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is a complication of sickle cell disease that can cause significant morbidity. Transfusion therapy has been shown to significantly increase oxygenation in patients with ACS and RBC exchange is considered the standard of care in patients at high risk of respiratory failure. CASE REPORT: A patient with ACS and several high-risk features, including thrombocytopenia, profound anemia, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, staphylococcal sepsis, and pulmonary embolism is presented. The patient refused transfusion on religious grounds and received 12 units of human polymerized Hb solution (poly SFH-P injection, PolyHeme, Northfield Laboratories) over the course of 13 days. The patient's respiratory status improved and she was discharged home without receiving RBC transfusions. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case that describes the use of PolyHeme in a patient with sickle cell disease, ACS, and sepsis. This therapy is thought to have been lifesaving for this patient.

    PMID: 12421214 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

  • AllTimeJeff

    Wow, this lookes like a lively thread...

    I know of my former personal friends who recevied blood fractions as described in the WT these last few years... I obviously haven't done the research that skeeter and others have, but the GB wants the medical community to know that JW can have fractions, and they want more of their flock to get these treatments. If they did, it would minimize the amount of negative publicity that always follow them around....

    But the legacy that "all blood MUST be poured onto the ground" is so ingrained in the flock, it comes as no surprise to me to hear that most of the old timers say no to the conscience decision of fractions.... I know myself when I first became aware of fractions being allowed, marked "no fractions at all" on my blood card....

    It is hypocritital of the GB, and makes no sense at all. It is so confusing, only a very small amount of elders can explain it correctly, and there are still traditionalists among the branch and GB personnel who wish it never started. Fractions come from blood, blood should be poured out. So if you don't use blood in an unscriptural manner, where and how will you be able to harvest the fractions to use as medicine?

  • Rabbit


    Thank you for this wealth of information. Hopefully, a couple of phone calls from South Dakota will stop the unnecessary rude noise .

    Good work,


  • AuldSoul


    I know of two JWs who did take dialysis until donor organs became available for transplant. No congregational action was taken and I didn't hear even a hint of rumor about it. The fact that you know one person who chose not to does not mean that is typical of JWs. My parents, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins got into a discussion after the new policy on fractions came out to discuss what their conscience would allow.

    The consensus was that whatever was allowed would not be disapproved by God and was therefore not only acceptable but desirable.

    That's about 30 JWs who have opted to accept fractions, more if you count the children of the cousins. My father is a PO who serves on the hospital liason committee in his area.


  • AuldSoul

    I don't see it as important what individual JWs decide beyond their doctrine.

    The doctrine—as published—claims that Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood.

    The doctrine—as published—allows whole blood in fractioned form.

    If my doctor told me to abstain from hamburgers it would not make any difference at all if I ground them up very finely, first, and then ingested the liquified results. I wouldn't be following his orders.

    Of course, even if he didn't tell me to abstain from hamburgers I would die pretty quickly if I ground one up and tried to "eat" it by IV injection into my blood stream. IV injection is not eating. No ingestion takes place.

    As it is, however, the doctrine both disallows transfusions of whole blood and allows the use of whole blood in fractioned form. Whether or not any individual JWs take advantage of the latitude of their doctrine, the JW religion has two mutually exclusive doctrines on the use of blood.

    If it is to be poured out on the ground no derivative fractions may be allowed for use. If it is not to be poured out on the ground why can't all of it be used to sustain life since it does not change in form or function from blood into food?

    If respect for life is the issue, then why is life so disrespected in the conflicting and restrictive nature of the application of their blood doctrine?

  • bluesapphire

    Hi Gary. i know a number of dubs who have taken fractions. some who are on dialyses. and MANY whose children have been immunized with fraction containing products. i think the proof is in the pudding. i aso know jws who say their conscience wouldnt allow it and complain the society published the conscience articles at all. finally my bil is on the hlc and told me point blank that jws who take fractions are supposed to keep it quiet so as to not stumble anyone else. hope this helps.

  • Vinny

    Sorry Gary, but your reasoning on this thread is just plain stupid. You sound like a JW to me. How stubborn and embarrassing to read your replies to skeeter. If there are 6.5 million JW's globally, and if fractions ARE CLEARLY PERMISSIBLE (and have been for years), then where in the heck do you get this, "I need proof, name, date size of shoe" kind of crap?

    Seriously, your credibilty went down to about.... zero for that nonsense.

    : )

  • Gill

    Vinny! Gary is talking sense. It is still a matter of 'degree' of what 'fractions' JWs will take but MANY especially of the older ones will take NO blood products no matter what the WTBTS. I can only go by experience of our JW relatives and their friends. They find it very easy to tick all the boxes that say NO on the NO BLOOD forms.

    There was also a great hoo haa in this area only two years ago when a two year old boy who had had major heart surgery was given blood fractions by a doctor after surgery. In the end the HLC told the parents not to take legal action for the administration of the fractions because the hospital could go furthur and make the child a ward of court.

    There are JWs who WILL take fractions but they may well 'break the rules' in other ways. Really brainwashed thoroughly 'IN' JWs such as my relatives will accept absolutely NO BLOOD PRODUCT!

    You cannot say that ALL JWs will take blood products and you cannot say that ALL JWS will NOT take blood products.

    But, since we're dealing with an 'aging' religion/cult here, the older ones do NOT understand the changes and cannot accept them. I know of a JW needing triple bypass who only a couple of years ago still REFUSED the surgery because it went against his conscience to use the bypass machine.

    Call them stupid or call them misinformed, JWs are still extremely stressed over the blood issue which has degnerated down to farce!

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident

    I personally know of 4 Jehovah's Witnesses who have taken blood fractions. One of them was a child of an elder on the Hospital Liason Committee and the other was the grandaugter of another prominant elder. Three were relatives of mine. I could give you names and dates but then I would breach their confidentiality, not to mention reveal my identity. This is not the proof Gary is looking for but I think there are enough hearsay cases to make a case that there are indeed witnesses taking fractions.


  • DannyHaszard


    E-mail Mindy Jacobs at mjacobs@edmsun.com.
    Letters to the editor should be sent to mailbag@edmsun.com.

    Transfusion confusion
    Edmonton Sun, Canada - 45 minutes ago
    There is something decidedly perverse about the Jehovah's Witnesses's couple who embraced modern medical technology to have children, only to reject help to ...

    Transfusion confusion
    Edmonton Sun, Canada - 46 minutes ago
    There is something decidedly perverse about the Jehovah's Witnesses's couple who embraced modern medical technology to have children, only to reject help to ...

    There is something decidedly perverse about the Jehovah's Witnesses's couple who embraced modern medical technology to have children, only to reject help to save those very babies. As I write this, there are four surviving infants of the sextuplets born last month in Vancouver. The family's identity hasn't been disclosed but these struggling babies have achieved instant stardom. The birth of sextuplets brings fame enough. But a little more than a week ago, the B.C. government seized custody of three of the tots and gave two of them blood transfusions, violating the religious tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses. Now it's up to a judge to sort it out, since the parents have gone to court to challenge the government's actions. The couple probably doesn't stand a chance. The law is clear on the issue of providing necessary medical care, including blood transfusions, to minors. Themedical rights of children take precedence over religious dictates. You can refuse any medical treatment based on whatever religious precepts you believe - even if it kills you. But you have no right to impose such nonsense on your kids. "The substantive law is clear," says Juliet Guichon, a medical bioethicist at the University of Calgary. "They don't have much ground to stand on." It appears the couple is arguing the government didn't give them proper notice about the blood transfusions, says Guichon, adding the problem with that argument is that they would have been warned long before the sextuplets were born that the babies would face potentially critical complications. "This could not have come as a surprise," she says of the need for blood transfusions. Coincidentally, an article on the issue co-authored by Guichon appeared in the December issue of Pediatrics and Child Health. In the piece, she argued that mature minors - teens who are deemed competent enough to make decisions about their medical care - may not be refusing treatment voluntarily. Before one can give or refuse consent to a medical procedure, the article noted, three conditions must be met: competence, adequate information and lack of coercion. A Jehovah's Witness patient may want to accept blood but refuse because of fear of being excommunicated from the religious community, Guichon wrote. "It may be difficult to accept a treatment option if that particular choice will lead to the loss of important relationships. "Coercion can be a great concern in pediatric cases involving JW families," she added. Patients may actually welcome the intervention of the courts because the law can remove a young Jehovah's Witness from "an impossible social position," she wrote. Because of the threat of religious sanctions, it's unwise for doctors to ask teen patients whether they'll accept blood products when other Jehovah's Witnesses are in the room, Guichon advised. Jehovah's Witnesses are warned to "avoid independent thinking," the article observed. Do the parents of the four surviving sextuplets really object to blood transfusions for their babies or do they feel pressured to take that stand for fear of being shunned by the JW community? Who knows? This case is surreal in so many ways. Fertility drugs, which experts assume the mother was taking, often lead to multiple pregnancies. But given the choice to abort some of the fetuses so the others would have a greater chance of living, the couple refused. Then they insisted that the sextuplets be resuscitated. Anything to keep their babies alive. Well, except blood transfusions. Meanwhile, University of Winnipeg bioethicist Arthur Schafer wonders why doctors are fighting to save babies for whom they originally suggested a do-not-resuscitate order. "It's impossible to avoid the feeling," he says, "that there are some babies who would have been lucky if their parents hadn't had access to the neonatal ICU." mjacobs@edmsun.com

    E-mail Mindy Jacobs at mjacobs@edmsun.com.
    Letters to the editor should be sent to mailbag@edmsun.com.

Share this