Survey on rejecting blood and deaths

Mrs Smith

Has there ever been a survey done on how many Jw's die because of the blood issue? I was just thinking that if a world wide survey could be done it would make people realise just how dangerous this religion is. I remember reading somewhere that about 1% die because of refusing blood. Was that 1% per annum or since 1881? The article was not too clear. But if it's 1% of JWs for a year this amount is 60 000 people but I have no idea over what period this was calculated.

skeptic1914

I can only add my two cents. My employer's son died in 1994 of leukemia after refusing blood fractions that (as of June 2000) are a matter for "personal decision". The awareness that they let their son die because of a human ruling only set in after OTHERS brought the June 2000 change to their attention.

Skeptic1914

Sam Beli

Perhaps you are referring to this editorial: http://www.ajwrb.org/science/risks1.shtml

steve2

Sounds like a good, scientific study might answer this question.

To be fair, though, the survey would need to also answer how many witnesses were saved by refusing blood (e.g., did not become infected with HIV or Hepatitis B).

PEC

First you would have to determine what percentage that took blood were infected with HIV or Hepatitis B. Philip

glenster

If you compare having all the choices of medical use of blood and alternative
treatments, and information about related risks, to a limited choice cynically created by playing
prophet with people's lives, the first is better medically. The JWs leaders
didn't have a humanitarian concern to warn people of the medical risks in all
manner of medical treatment to have a better informed choice of lower risk
treatment, but used risks of the medical use of blood to rationalize their out-
right ban of whole segments of use of it, which isn't the responsible result of
that information.

When I first looked into it, in the late 1980's, doctors I contacted were
already saying that most important uses of blood and major blood fractions were
found outside of the surgery room, yet JWs leaders have usually emphasized that
JWs had surgery without blood. Again, it's supposed to make something irrespon-
sible look responsible.

Spreading information about medical risks while not playing prophet and un-
necessarily banning whole segments of the use of it would be better medically.
What they've done is as cynical as Popoff telling people to throw away their
insulin knowing he'd conned them with a radio transmitter gimmick. It's not
somehow holy because you could show that some doctors didn't prescribe the right
dosages.

According to "AWAKE!" May 22, 1994, p.2, "thousands of youths died for putting
God first."
http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html

You also have to consider that alternative treatments are more available in
some U.S. cities and such than in some other places in the world. Also, the
numbers of JWs leaders' followers are a lot bigger now than about 60 years ago
when the ban started--the farther you go back, the fewer followers there were
but fewer alternative treatments there were, too.