WSJ JW Smackdown on Editorial Page !

by metatron 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • metatron

    Under the heading, "Transplants and the First Amendment" today:

    "I respect the Jehovah's Witnesses for fighting to keep the government from forcing them to violate their religious principles....... But to go from those rights to demanding that I pay for their more expensive medical treatments to satisfy their religious scruples is outrageous. If they have special medical needs, let them turn to members of their faith community for financial support..... To demand that the government finance their religious preferences, while refusing to salute the flag of the government that will pay for them, is blatant hypocrisy."

    "Mary Stinemetz may have issues with saluting the American flag, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and serving in the armed forces in the name of her religion but it seems she has no problem milking the American taxpayers."


  • agonus

    There is a tremendous sense of entitlement that comes with being a Witness. When you have The Truth, you never compromise for others but you expect others to compromise a hell of a lot for you. You don't realize it so much when you're in, but it's true.

  • moshe

    JWs are social parasites who have no qualms about draining caesar's social services, while giving very little back to the community.

  • Reality79

    Just one of the many problems these hypocritical bastards cause.

  • agonus

    Good point Moshe. What exactly DO they render unto Caesar?

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    Several double standards are in evidence here:

    - As the writer of the above letter observed, the JWs still insist on their full rights as citizens, even though they pick and choose which of the duties of citizens they will perform. Double standard No.1!

    - Conversely, in the their own congregations, they harshly criticize those members who might insist on "their rights" as individuals. (A good JW, apparently, should only be concerned with fulfilling their responsibilities as "Christians.") It is quite all-right to demand your rights from the government as a citizen - just look out you don't start demading your rights as an individual from the congregation. Double Standard No.2!


  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    The letters to the editor are in response to J. Gordon Melton's article here:

    He is quite critical of several "rights" they have obtained through court action. It's a pretty good article but doesn't quite go far enough. They probably just didn't have enough room in the column and edited what he originally gave the paper.

  • sizemik

    There is also a complete failure among JW's to recognise "Ceasar" (a heavily weighted euphamism), is in actuality the collective community of their fellow humans. Perhaps if they had a clearer more realistic view of this they would also see the hypocrisy of taking "Ceasar" for everything they can, while persuing their altruistic claims of offering "salvation" to their "fellowman". They are in actuality one and the same.

  • sizemik

    I read the article in the WSJ and tracked some of the feedback. I found this post from a Mr Peter Brown, clearly a JW or JW apologist. What got right up my nose was his final conclusion that cost savings from bloodless surgery represented a "huge donation" . . . see what you think.

    The EVIDENCE for Major Benefits of BLOODLESS MEDICINE is overwhelming for those who care to look with an open mind.
    "One researcher said, “evidence-based medicine challenges the medical profession by disputing what and how physicians know.”3
    The application of evidence-based medicine to clinical practice has been slow for a number of reasons. It may take a long time to assess the large volumes of scientific evidence concerning a test or treatment. Once a definitive analysis of the medical evidence has been done,

    it takes resources and time to educate physicians about it.

    Finally, even when there exists clear scientific evidence that a Familiar, Accepted test or treatment Does Not Work,
    it frequently proves hard to change an established practice.

    Doctors get set in their ways like everyone else.

    Financial pressures of special interests often become very influential."
    Chapter 1: 'Evidence-based Medicine' from Money Driven Medicine—Tests and Treatments That Don’t Work © by Dr. Cundiff

    From a 2007 article - part concerning Military switch to bloodless strategies
    "up to US $9000 must be calculated for one unit of red blood cells when transfused in countries like Afghanistan" unquote

    “Paul Potter, M.D., and a keynote speaker at October's NABMS convention, estimates that using [bloodless surgery] in half of all procedures would save the heath care industry $3.7 billion a year.” unquote
    ©-Health Industry Today

    $3.7 Billion is not small potatoes - and that is if only used in half of procedures. Imagine at 90% - a saving of $6.7 Billion. That's a lot of money in the pocket for health care and Not in 'Special Interests' such as making $BIG Profit$ from transfusions.

    Quote from 2006 article
    "Dr. Waters said, blood conservation programs can have a big impact.
    When he helped found the Cleveland Clinic's blood management program nine years ago {1997 ?}, it saved the hospital 10,000 units of blood in its FIRST YEAR. "
    AT a minimum of $500 per unit the Cleveland Clinic saved at least $5 million in its 1st year {1997}!!! When the REAL costs of transfusion are included - the $avings are $ubstantial probably closer to $10 million - the 1st year -- that equals a Huge donation.

    I couldn't let it pass and so have now registered with the WSJ and posted the following response . . .

    The comments and quotes of Peter Brown are less "open minded" than they purport. Primarily because they present only one side of the ledger. The costs of providing blood for transfusion and related medical proceedures are presented in terms of potential savings.
    The cost of developing bloodless surgical techniques and then providing them are not presented as an offset. Jehovah's Witnesses provide little or nothing in the way of financial resources to further bloodless medicine. Instead they reserve their participation to one of a Religious pressure group content to spend large sums in the judicial processes of having their members religious rights recognised.
    To present alleged savings from the non usage of blood without considering the costs mentioned above as a "huge donation" is more an indictment on a dogmatic Religious mindset than an altruistic contribution to the community.

    I tried to harness my anger as much as I could . . . but this post will get a respose I feel. Any who are more informed than I may wish to offer some suggestions as to a response, should the debate continue. Thanks all.

  • Morbidzbaby

    Another double standard regarding blood: They are willing to allow fractions, which take more pints of blood to obtain and process than a whole blood transfusion, yet they will not donate BACK to the already scant blood supply that they pull out of. For instance, it takes about 40 units of plasma to get one unit of cryoprecipitate. If, as I read on a different website, the dosage is usually 5 units, that means that it takes 200 units of plasma to treat ONE PATIENT with ONE DOSE. 200 units...meaning 200 people gave their blood for that one person. And yet, they give NOTHING back. And they claim to be so selfless...


Share this