by besty 16 Replies latest watchtower medical
I think this can help… http://www.ajwrb.org/misc/question.shtml
That link has some great questions.
The question I have never received a reasonable answer to is:
If it is wrong to donate blood, where do the blood fractions Jehovah's Witnesses use come from?
The answers I have received are:
Regarding whole blood this is from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/642986/whole-blood
Whole blood transfusions are infrequently used because most transfusions only require one or more specific blood components. Whole blood, which contains red blood cells, plasma, platelets, and coagulation factors, is used mainly during cardiac surgery and when there is moderate or massive hemorrhage. It can be used only up to 35 days after it has been drawn and is not always available, because...
From http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/St-Wr/Transfusion.html - WHOLE BLOOD. Whole blood is used exactly as received from the donor. Blood components are parts of whole blood, such as red blood cells (RBCs), white blood cells (WBCs), plasma, platelets, clotting factors, and immunoglobulins. Whole blood is used only when needed or when fractionated components are not available, because too much whole blood can raise the recipient's blood pressure. Use of blood components is a more efficient way to use the blood supply, because blood that has been fractionated can be used to treat more than one person.
Another question I like particularly for an HLC member is, "Since blood fractions are now allowed, who is responsible for the JWs that died refusing blood fractions?"
Thank you Check your Premises - I like your questions (saved)
May I pick up on one of them since I have have reasoning the same way....The Society are fond of likening the forced blood transfusion to rape. e.g.
km 11/90 p. 6 par. 36 Are You Ready to Face a Faith-Challenging Medical Situation? ***
"You could reply:
• "If blood is forced on me in any way, it would be the same to me as being raped. I would suffer the emotional and spiritual consequences of that unwanted attack on me for the rest of my life. I would resist with all my strength such a violation of my body without my consent. I would make every effort to prosecute my attackers just as I would in a case of rape."
A forceful argument, and I could not help but think of poor Emma Gough who bravely resisted a transfusion even though it cost her her young life.
But are rape victims expected to resist to the point of death? No..
Awake 1993 march 8th page 8
"If you are unable to fend off the rape, concentrate on being able to identify your assailant later. If possible, scratching him or tearing his clothing will leave blood and fabric evidence with you. But at this point, you may simply be unable to fight any longer. In that case, "do not berate yourself that you ‘let’ him rape you," said Robin Warshaw in I Never Called It Rape. "You do not need to sustain injury or death to ‘prove’ you were raped."
So, to avoid rape (reasonably so) a J W sIster may submit if she is convinced that her life would otherwise be forfeited. If she said that to the elders later, and was not repentant, then they would have no grounds for action against her for immorality.
So , can a bottle of red liquid really be held to have a higher value than a girl's virginity or a woman's honour???
As the Apostle Paul might have said "Never may that happen !" - and yet it does happen, time and again in Hospitals ....
Has anybody got any 'clever' questions....
"Explain to me how a patient voluntarily connected by IV to an inverted 500ml unit of plasma has broken God's law while a patent voluntarily connected by IV to an inverted 500ml unit of 5% albumin solution has not?"
(Given the fact that plasma is the colloid formed when albumin is suspended in water...)
Great questions, however, that last question will get no-where. JW's will never take responsibility for the "CHOICE" of other. They will tell you that those who died, died because of their conscience and that its an honorable death (fall out of the light-is-getting-brighter bull-s#it dream).
Arguing known facts and medical knowledge falls on deaf ears. Of course, most everything that disagrees with JW doctrine/practice falls on deaf ears. JWs claim to accept the Bible over all other information or opinion, so let the Bible answer:
What is more important? The sanctity of blood or the sanctity of life? What principle of Christ would apply here? How would Jesus reason if faced with such a decision? Would Jesus allow someone to die to keep the law on blood?
Mark 2:23 through Mark 3:5
23 Now it happened that he was proceeding through the grainfields on the sabbath, and his disciples started to make their way plucking the heads of grain. 24 So the Pharisees went saying to him: “Look here! Why are they doing on the sabbath what is not lawful?” 25 But he said to them: “Have YOU never once read what David did when he fell in need and got hungry, he and the men with him? 26 How he entered into the house of God, in the account about A·bi´a·thar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he gave some also to the men who were with him?” 27 So he went on to say to them: “The sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the sabbath; 28 hence the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.”
1 Once again he entered into a synagogue, and a man was there with a dried-up hand. 2 So they were watching him closely to see whether he would cure the man on the sabbath, in order that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand: “Get up [and come] to the center.” 4 Next he said to them: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?” But they kept silent. 5 And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
Jesus showed that breaking the law to save a life was more important than the law itself. The law was for the sake of man, not the other way around. To allow man to suffer, or die, to keep the law is against the principle as set forth by Jesus' fulfillment of the law.
If it is wrong to store blood where do blood fractions come from?
Watchtower Approves HemoPure for Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses have long been known for their rejection of blood and blood-component transfusion, even when it is necessary to save life. In a remarkable change in policy, the Witnesses’ governing body announced in the June 15, 2000 issue of its official church publication The Watchtower, that members may now accept "fractions of any of the primary components" of blood. (Italics added) Previously, Witnesses who accepted a transfusion of blood fractions other than those found in plasma faced possible expulsion and enforced shunning by church members.
This change in policy was particularly timely for one man. According to a September 24, 2000 article in the Sacramento Bee, a patient was recently transfused with Hemopure®, a highly purified oxygen-carrying hemoglobin solution made from fractionated bovine (cow) blood and manufactured by Biopure Corporation.
Dorsey Griffith, a medical writer for the Bee, states that Gregory Brown, a representative from the Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Liaison Committee, approved the use of the oxygen-carrying solution that was transfused into the patient, Jose Orduño. The article notes: “When Orduño woke up from his drug-induced slumber, about a month after the ordeal began, Angelica was there …His sister told him about the accident and how he almost died, and about the drug made from cow blood that had saved his life.”
That approval of the use of hemoglobin marks a notable change in the Watchtower Society’s policy is readily seen from its own published statements:
“Is it wrong to sustain life by administering a transfusion of blood or plasma or red cells or others of the component parts of the blood? Yes!...The prohibition includes "any blood at all." (Leviticus 3:17) - Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, 1961, pp. 13, 14“…various tonics and tablets sold by druggists show on their labels that they contain blood fractions such as hemoglobin. So it is necessary for one to be alert… if they are to keep themselves ‘without spot from the world.’—Jas. 1:27.” The Watchtower, 9/15/61, p. 557.
“Early in man’s history, our Creator ruled that humans should not eat blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) He stated that blood represents life, which is a gift from him. Blood removed from a creature could be used only in sacrifice, such as on the altar. Otherwise, blood from a creature was to be poured on the ground, in a sense giving it back to God ...It would be right, of course, to avoid products that listed things such as blood, blood plasma, plasma, globin (or globulin) protein, or hemoglobin (or globin) iron.” The Watchtower, 10/15/92 - Questions From Readers. (Italics added)
As recently as 1998 two officials from the Watchtower Society’s “Hospital Information Services” wrote that Jehovah's Witnesses “do not accept hemoglobin which is a major part of red blood cells.... Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept a blood substitute which uses hemoglobin taken from a human or animal source." Bailey R, Ariga T. The view of Jehovah's Witnesses on blood substitutes. Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol 1998;26:571-576.
The policy on hemoglobin and other blood fractions was changed in the June 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower. This latest change may in fact cause further confusion for many Witnesses since products like Hemopure® are derived from large quantities of stored animal blood. Numerous witnesses have questioned the logic of such an internally inconsistent dogma. Some believe that the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is simply changing its long-standing doctrine gradually to avoid legal problems anticipated with an overt change to a policy that has resulted in so many deaths over the years.
Hemopure® is currently being evaluated for human use in a pivotal, multinational Phase III clinical trial. Biopure expects to complete this trial and file Biologic License Applications (BLA’s) in the United States, European Union and Canada in 2001 for perioperative use in elective surgeries. The company has already applied for marketing approval of Hemopure® in South Africa with a proposed product indication to eliminate or reduce red blood cell transfusions in elective surgeries. Biopure is also investigating the product's use in trauma, to oxygenate hypoxic tumors, and in conditions where tissue oxygenation may be beneficial but blood is not normally transfused.
The “compassionate use” program makes Hemopure® available where a life-threatening situation exists and compatible red blood cell transfusion is 1) not available, 2) not effective, or 3) not acceptable to the patient. Requests for “compassionate use” availability of Hemopure® may come from the family or doctor of the patient; thereafter the patient, the patient’s medical institution, and Biopure must approve the request, which is then forwarded along with details of the case for final approval by the FDA. Approval is made on a case-by-case basis, and in those cases where it has been approved, it has been made available within a few days. Requests for information regarding “compassionate use” approval of Hemopure® should be directed to Jan Anderson, R.N., of Biopure. Her telephone number is 617-234-6827. For further information see the Biopure website at: http://www.biopure.com.
