Awesome blog re blood issue
by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
purplesofa
yes it is great, I read it the other day!!!
purps
-
slimboyfat
She wrote the article about blood for the Journal of Church and State a couple of years ago. She claims JWs don't make an 'informed' choice on blood. But this turns out to mean that they simply fail to share her negative view of Watchtower interpretations. Either people should be able to make conscientious decisions based on religious beliefs or not. If she had her way JWs' beliefs would not be viewed as equal to the beliefs of adherents of other religious; as if other religions are somehow more rational.
-
besty
sorry SBF - you have this completely wrong
she asserts that JW's are misinformed from a medical standpoint as to the benefits of blood therapy versus the risks of abstaining. Also the benefit of unconventional alternatives to blood are overplayed.
AFAIK Kerry has no problem with religious beliefs - her paper was about misrepresentation of the medical facts. Note that facts are falsifiable, unlike beliefs which are faith based.
-
leavingwt
What Besty said.
Junk medical advice is given during Service Meetings. Most of the rank and file have no idea how refusing blood treatment puts their LIFE in danger, should an emergency arise.
-LWT
-
rebel8
slim, I'm kinda speechless on that one buddy.
I've already made voluminous posts on the subject of misrepresentation of medical facts and how that plays out in the real life of a jw with a serious chronic medical condition that requires blood products. I guess I'll just let those posts speak for themselves. I lived it, so there's really no way anyone can refute what actually occurred in my life and the lives of many others.
Nothing stops the wts from just talking about their doctrinal rationale for not taking blood. There was never any need or excuse for them making up medical information and knowingly misquoting medical authorities to pretend no blood is always safer.
-
slimboyfat
Where do medical facts end and religious views begin? It is not so easy.
The Pope says not using condoms is good for people. The Lancet Journal disagrees. But aren't they talking about different things?
Kerry Louderback certainly has a compelling personal story though.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/27/special_reports/religion/18_25_301_26_06.txt
But at the end of the day it is up to individuals to make sure they each make their own informed choice. If a person chooses only to read what the WT says about blood transfusions and base their decision on that then that's a choice too. Who is an outsider to say that they must consider other information too?
-
leavingwt
But at the end of the day it is up to individuals to make sure they each make their own informed choice.
Please educate yourself on Mind Control.
You're not describing the Jehovah's Witness religion.
-LWT
-
slimboyfat
The Watchtower certainly overstates the case for the safety of non-blood treatment. But fundamentally every Witness realises that the stance is they will reject whole blood whether that involves greater risks or not. You either buy into that or you don't. As to the technicalities of what fractions are allowed, it's up to each Witness to know where it's at and what their personal stance is.
Haemophiliacs in the 1970s who were not informed that the official stance on factor VIII had changed (as far as I understand what went on from what Ray Franz wrote about it) surely have a strong moral case and possibly a legal case against the Society.
-
leavingwt
You either buy into that or you don't.
They don't make the decisions. Watchtower decides for them. This is at the heart of the problem.