by zengalileo 17 Replies latest watchtower medical
It's my opinion that as soon as they started dealing with the components of blood (blood fractions) and certain procedures (i.e. blood salvage) as being a conscience matter, it blew the whole dogma out of the park. Blood is blood is blood no matter how it's divided.
The "slave" got more lenient as more of them needed medical treatments involving blood.
The GB have blood on their hands.
I received the following information, in a PM, from a JWN member as a follow-up to my post above. By request his/her user name is withheld. Thank you for the information!
you said:
(It really is the same thing, since hemoglobin is 97% of red blood cells, but the WTS calls it a fraction, making it ok for Witnesses to take.)
yes you are correct, but you are forgetting that the same insert also allows "Hemin" which it states as "less than 2% of red blood cells"
well if you add up 97% and 1.75% (for Hemin) you are now broaching 99% of red blood cells as a conscience matter.
I used this ridiculous wording as a way to get my naive JW family to "allow" red blood cells.
I had the dr. write up the consent form to allow "packaged hemoglobin". He even laughed that if the lab saw this they would have no idea what he meant.
Hemoglobin outside of red blood cells are basically waste product the body disposes of (billyruben for example)
If there was one component of blood that DEFINED blood it would be Hemoglobin - hospitals speak of Hemoglobin and RBC analogously.
The WTS allows virtually 99% of the red blood cell as hemoglobin but draws the line at the membrane that holds it hemoglobin together, which is made of fat and cholesterol!
Think about this...... the bloodiest part of blood (hemoglobin) is acceptable, but a sack made of fat and cholesterol is NOT ALLOWED!
99% of RBC - Allowed (hemoglobin)
1% - NOT allowed (cholesterol)
I consider 1% a "fraction" far more than 99%
can you see the absurdity?? On top of this the WT June 15, 2004 QFR's states that "any fraction" of the 4 main components is acceptable.
Is the 1% membrane of the RBC a fraction? Absolutely! on its own that 1% is acceptable, on it's own the 99% hemo is acceptable. Just don't take them together!!!
My Dr. literally laughed at the writing but totally understood where I was coming from. He looked me in the eye and said - "so we just need to word this right and play their same game of semantics"
EXACTLY!! And we wrote up a consent for that my whole family of JW's was happy with when in the end it was allowing red blood cells. MY FAMILY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW! They were proud they upheld Jehovah's law on blood.
And this Dr. had been involved in court cases with the HLC before and asked for copies of the articles I showed him.
I felt like a super hero after that.
You can post my PM if you like but do not refer to my user name as I am keeping low key on this site due to some JW spies keeping tabs on me.
I just thought you'd appreciate the points above
peace out...
I enjoyed reading this member's information. These parts are memorable to me...
"the bloodiest part of blood (hemoglobin) is acceptable..." That is well put.
"...you are now broaching 99% of red blood cells as a conscience matter."
"Is the 1% membrane of the RBC a fraction? Absolutely! on its own that 1% is acceptable, on it's own the 99% hemo is acceptable. Just don't take them together!!!"
"My Dr. [said] - "so we just need to word this right and play their same game of semantics""
"my whole family of JW's was happy with when in the end it was allowing red blood cells. MY FAMILY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW!"
Yes you are right about hemoglobin. Although what I've read recently on hemoglobin is that it is not very effective. There is hardly a reason to take it if the cells are compromised. AlSo while it's great that they now accept 99% of blood, the most important part of blood arguably, the red blood cells for some reason get a special place on a pedastall. Again, I really think it's just because they are red. I don't think any JW can say why red blood cells are so special and the other 99% are not as special. The color is as good an explanation as any. Anyway, I still think we should just stop saying that JWs don't accept blood. What we should be saying is JWs don't accept the skin of the red blood cells and leave it at that.
Or better yet, say JWs accept 100% of blood. Just as long as you run it down the hall and shake it a bit first.
Zen,
It is unhelpful to use the title “JWs Now Accept Plasma and Platelets”. This is not something new as though “now” Witnesses are accepting transfusion of products such as plasma and platelets. The title leads medical providers and ethicists to think something has changed when it has not.
If you consult the article dated 2009 by Lee Elder titled “Jehovah’s Witnesses Accepting Blood Transfusion” you’ll find ample evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses have always accepted transfusion blood products, including whole blood. This is because the whole community of Jehovah’s Witnesses has never wholly embraces Watchtower’s blood doctrine.
And, by the way, the article by Lee Elder was formerly available at AJWRB link of http://www.ajwrb.org/Jehovah_s_Witnesses_Accept_Blood_Transfusion.pdf
The link is now dead and that is unfortunate since many medical authorities had linked to it. Now those links are useless.
Marvin Shilmer
Hi Marvin
Ive never seen your site before, I'm going to have a good read through it, esp the blood issue, which I'm extremely interested in learning more about and how to put forth a strong argument regarding how absurd it all is.
Thanks for pointing that out Marvin. I'll get on that link right away. I thought we fixed that once before, so I don't know why it's not working.
As to why I decided to word the link the way I did, well:
The problem with simply saying JWs accept plasma and platelets is that every JW AND every doctor is going to simply say, "No they don't. I know better. I deal with JWs every day..." and then they will not look into it further. When I say NOW, I am annopuncing officially that we have anecdotal eveidence of a JW accepting plasma and platelets, it is in a peer reviewed article, and the patient in question was not punished, however they did die. I'm not trying to MIS lead anybody, I am trying to LEAD them to the undeniable FACT that JWs are no different than any other population out there who accepts ALL forms of blood transfusions.
My goal is to save lives. As the Watchtower continues to retrain its people to accept blood transfusions and not punish them for it, I feel an obligation to report this to Jehovah's Witnesses. The doctrinal change and the admission of being wrong, let's face it, may never come. But Jehovah's Witnesses accepting blood transfusions, that is happening NOW, right now. AJWRB in the past HINTED at this fact, but now it is going to become the central message of AJWRB. JWs accept blood. JWs accept blood. Only a small fraction of extremist or fundamentalist JWs and some real old timers still reject blood.
"so we just need to word this right and play their same game of semantics" YES. This is what the medical community is doing. They are playing along with JWs in their delusion that they do not accpet blood transfusions. If it will save lives then I support that. But in the meantime, I have decided to not play the Watchtower's silly game of semantics. They can say they reject blood all they want. But the fact is, they accept blood transfusions, NOW.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
zen
zengalileo writes:
“As the Watchtower continues to retrain its people to accept blood transfusions and not punish them for it, I feel an obligation to report this to Jehovah's Witnesses.”
Current Watchtower policy is to treat as disassociated any Witness who conscientiously accepts transfusion of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. This has not changed. If you say otherwise then the burden is yours to prove it true, something you have yet to do.
Marvin Shilmer
