250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical

Marvin Shilmer

-

“OK, so do you now see ONE KNOWN problem, since the study's sub-population does not reflect ONE KNOWN property of the population for which you're trying to extrapolate a figure? Beliaev's study didn't contain any data points in a group (i.e. under 18 y.o. who are protected elsewhere) that is known to exist, since such cases exist in the rest of the World.”

Adamah,

For prior reasons stated I don’t see the extent of effect to my conclusion you have insisted on seeing, and knowledge that no deaths occurred among the young patients only underscores the conservative nature of my extrapolation.

“…it demonstrates why the study wasn't designed to produce results to show what you'd like it to study…”

You’ve repeated that statement several times and several ways. Your premise is false, and continuing to repeat it is ad nauseum.

- I’ve not used the study to show something the study wasn’t designed to show.

- I’ve used a piece of factual information exposed by the study to form an extrapolation.

Big difference.

In the 2 region service area from which Beliaev’s data set came from either 19 JWs died due to lack of red cell transfusion over and beyond the norm or they didn’t. If they did then it’s completely valid to use that number against the population of JWs in that service area to form a ratio of deaths per capita among JWs for lack of red cell transfusion.

So far you’ve shown no reason to think the 19 deaths at issue either did not occur or were unrelated to lack of red cell transfusion.

“It's not "avoiding the point", as you say: it's IS the point, a reality of the World that non-minors generally enjoy the RIGHT to self-ownership and self-determination (sovereignty of the individual) of what happens to their own bodies, to be the exclusive controller and determinant of their own life. It explains WHY JWs are allowed to refuse live-saving treatment and to die for their beliefs (and whether you choose to recognize that reality is another matter...)”

My extrapolation is the subject at issue.

My extrapolation is not designed to explain medical ethics.

My extrapolation is designed to do one thing: offer an estimate of deaths among JWs for years 1961-2011 based on the ratio of deaths per capita among JWs in New Zealand due to lack of red cell transfusion over the 10-year period of 1998-2007.

Anything else is a sideshow.

So far you’ve not offered any reason why the ratio of deaths per capita among JWs in New Zealand for years 1998-2007 due to lack of red cell transfusion is anyways high as calculated by Beliaev and peers.

So far you’ve not offered any reason to think the general population of JWs in the world are less likely to face Hb =/< 8 g dL than JWs in New Zealand for years 1998-2007.

Finally, taking and using information for purposes of extrapolation based on the face value of that information is entirely appropriate so long as readers are given this information, which is what I’ve done.

When I read your complaints in this discussion it sounds as though you’d rather no one offer an estimate of deaths suffered among JWs, even if they’re offering this estimate based on the face value of information in hand. We can quibble all day about what makes for a more precise estimate. But this will never change the face value of information we have at hand right now. To me, your responses sound as though you’re offended that anyone would bit off an attempt to use verifiable information for purpose of having some means of estimating deaths due to a deadly Watchtower doctrine.

Sharing information that is verifiable is credible.

Sharing an extrapolation based on verifiable information based on stated assumptions is credible too, so long as the math is correct.

Marvin Shilmer
Simon

This was only made worse by the sociological practice among JWs to downplay instances where blood refusal was big news and the JW patient died.

Really? Normally they are held up as examples of extreme faith. They have even had WatchTower articles about them 'glorifying' their steadfast choice.

Again Adamah, I agree with you - no one really cares a great deal because to the outside world they are just religious nutters who do it to themselves. The times that people do care is when they force it upon a child and why those are the types of cases that get more media attention. They are also few and far between in most civilised countries as the courts normally and quite rightly step in to prevent abuse. Even if it was 50,000 worldwide over the last 50+ years it's hardly going to fight for attention with more pressing issues and worth causes.

Also, let's remember, this is not something that people don't know about it. Look at the studies - it's well known, the medical establishment deals with it and accepts it. It isn't like it's a hidden secret.

Just like the shunning, blame should be put fairly where it lies - whoever decides to believe in some silly doctrine to the point of death. It's no different than someone believing medical quackery like eating Flax seed will cure their cancer and dying as a result- yes, the people who promote silly ideas are stupid and irresponsible but personal responsibility plays a part for any choice that anyone makes.

There is the added complication with blood of "coercion' because of the threat of disfellowshipping. It comes down to whether you want to belong to a club that has silly rules that you don't want to keep or not. Some people chose the membership over their life, more fool them. Numbers aren't going to change this.

All that could be changed is the threat of action based on the doctrine being broken but again, if people chose to release their medical information then that is their business. Normally the doctors won't (complicated I know if family are involved). And how to police such a thing? Even without any direct sanctions people can shun and refuse to speak to someone even if an authority says otherwise. No police court in the land can stop this.

So we're back to how to convince people ... and making it about real people, personal stories and their loved ones. Make sure they know the consequences and history of the doctrine, all the flip-flops and changes and make them think about how they'd feel if their child died over something that was changed a year later.

I think the world is changing though and more and more religions of all kinds are losing their edge and it's a lot more acceptable to question and disagree now, even redicule and laugh at them which is a damn good thing. The WTS will probably be holdouts but they are never as isolated from the world and it's effects as they like to imagine they are.
Simon

My extrapolation is the subject at issue.

My extrapolation is not designed to explain medical ethics.

My extrapolation is designed to do one thing: offer an estimate of deaths among JWs for years 1961-2011 based on the ratio of deaths per capita among JWs in New Zealand due to lack of red cell transfusion over the 10-year period of 1998-2007.

Anything else is a sideshow.

Sorry Marvin, I think your extrapolation is the sideshow. What do you think it will accomplish?

One story about one real person raises more awareness but none will make any change.

What is the final objective? To have a government start ruling on religious belief? It's never going to happen.

What we can do though is kick religion every chance we get and make sure it's not allowed to take one inch more than is allowed. That means not encroaching into schools and government and staying squarely in people's homes and churches.

I find it kind of ironic that not so long ago you seemed to be arguing *against* this.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/253748/1/Valedictorian-Rips-Up-Preapproved-Speech-Recites-Prayer-Instead

This is why seemingly trivial issues are not trivial at all.

If you give religion an inch it will try and take a thousand miles.
Marvin Shilmer

-

“Normally they are held up as examples of extreme faith. They have even had WatchTower articles about them 'glorifying' their steadfast choice.”

Simon,

I disagree with that assessment. In medical journal article upon medical journal article Watchtower has relentlessly had its representatives hammer home a notion that it’s difficult to say when a patient died from lack of blood.

For consumption in the JW community Watchtower goes so far as to quote physicians out of context to drive home a point that blood refusal is not a substantial factor of mortality among JWs.

From Watchtower’s NO BLOOD--Medicine Meets the Challenge video, 2001:

- “Dr. Aryeh Shander: "To say that one has died because of refusal of blood, I think, is a very general, misleading statement."

- "Dr. Peter Carmel: "It's rarely, if ever, the case that a patient refused a blood transfusion and therefore died."

This kind of downplaying lessens the opportunity for JWs to understand what is happening when members die in the presence of a blood refusal.

Only when the reason for a given death is undeniably the result of refusing blood is a death held up as an example of faith. They do this in these cases because they have no other choice. So they use the event to whip up a faith-based enthusiasm.

Marvin Shilmer
Marvin Shilmer

-

“Sorry Marvin, I think your extrapolation is the sideshow.”

Simon,

I’m glad you have an opinion. So what?

“What do you think it will accomplish?”

I have no particular goal for sharing the information I share. I share what I do for sake of making more information available and more findable on issues that are important to me.

“One story about one real person raises more awareness but none will make any change.”

I’m glad you have an opinion. So what?

“What is the final objective? To have a government start ruling on religious belief? It's never going to happen.”

My only objective is to make information more widely available and easier to find on issues that are important to me. That’s it.

“What we can do though is kick religion every chance we get and make sure it's not allowed to take one inch more than is allowed. That means not encroaching into schools and government and staying squarely in people's homes and churches.”

That’s silly. Kicking religion?

Religion is a result of society tolerating ignorance. Kicking religion is wasting time. Sharing verifiable information helps educate. Education is the antidote to ignorance.

“I find it kind of ironic that not so long ago you seemed to be arguing *against* this.”

I’ve never argued against education.

And, frankly, your opinion of what I mean by things I write is not very compelling. My experience is that often you fail to read critical pieces of information and more often than not you read what you want to see into what a person’s written if you don’t like their politics. But that’s just my opinion.

Marvin Shilmer
Simon

I disagree with that assessment. In medical journal article upon medical journal article Watchtower has relentlessly had its representatives hammer home a notion that it’s difficult to say when a patient died from lack of blood.

Really? You don't get that they say different things to different audiences?

Of course they say different things to the medical establishment than they do to their members. The don't want to appear like dogmatic religious fanatics to educated people but to the dogmatic religious fanatics? Well, they want to be charging the way.

I’ve never argued against education.

Sure, sharing information helps - but so does not allowing the insidious cancer of religion to be given oxygen wherever it doesn't need it.

Nice try attempting to distort what I said into arguing against education. What I suggested is that people who go somewhere for education should never have to be exposed to the mind numbing stupidity of religious doctrine.

You can try and shift the discussion into politics if you want. If your politics support religion then I find your whole argument vacuous and hypocritical - if you support religion then you are by definition against all logic and reason and evidence for that is all faith is - blind adherance to ideals whatever else the facts say. How can you support both? If you support reason then you have no faith and to claim support of religion is nothing but a shallow appeal to votes from the unthinking.

Facts and Faith don't make good bedfellows.
Marvin Shilmer

-

“Really? You don't get that they say different things to different audiences?”

Simon,

You don’t read very well, do you.

Watchtower’s telling the same lie in medical journals that it’s telling Jehovah’s Witnesses, that ‘To say a person has died because of refusing blood is a misleading statement,’ and ‘It’s rarely, if ever, the case that a patient refused a blood transfusion and therefore died.’

“Sure, sharing information helps - but so does not allowing the insidious cancer of religion to be given oxygen wherever it doesn't need it.”

Then what I'm doing helps because I'm sharing information.

Oh, and I don't see anyone in this discussion pushing religion.

Marvin Shilmer
Marvin Shilmer

-

“Major organ transplants, severe anemia, massive hemorrhage from trauma-all are being managed without exposing patients to blood's hazards. So even from a medical viewpoint the Witnesses' position cannot be dismissed.”— Gene Smalley (Research Staff, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), Health Progress, October 1989

With those words a Watchtower representative uses weasel word presentation to suggest better outcome treating conditions such as severe anemia and massive hemorrhage without blood transfusion medicine. It’s was a lie then and it’s a lie today.

Watchtower does not want people to have any means of estimating deaths among JWs because of abiding by its blood doctrine.

Marvin Shilmer
Simon

You don’t read very well, do you.

Watchtower’s telling the same lie in medical journals that it’s telling Jehovah’s Witnesses, that ‘To say a person has died because of refusing blood is a misleading statement,’ and ‘It’s rarely, if ever, the case that a patient refused a blood transfusion and therefore died.’

First, I'm getting tired of your constant insults. It stops now.

Second, you are wrong. They do say different things to internal members and external parties on all sorts of things including blood.

Here is an example of a WT from the http://watchtower-blood.org/ site:

"The cover of the May 22, 1994 Awake! magazine showing photos of 26 children, with the caption: "Youths Who Put God First." Inside the magazine glorifies Witness children who died supporting WTS policy."

There are also incidents recited from the platform at Kingdom Halls and Assemblies.

So yes, they say different things to different groups.

They lie. Hardly news but surprising that you didn't know.
Marvin Shilmer

-

“Second, you are wrong. They do say different things to internal members and external parties on all sorts of things including blood.”

If you read closely you’ll not find where I’ve disagreed with your statement above. But you’ll have to read what I’ve written for what it says at face value.

My earlier point is that Watchtower tells THE SAME lie when it comes to deaths due to blood refusal. The lie is to suggest that it occurs rarely or infrequently.

This is not saying that Watchtower does not AT ALL admit that some JWs have died the result of refusing blood. Watchtower makes this admission to secular medical authorities AND to JWs. I’ve said as much in so many words. Yet for whatever reason you don’t see this in things I’ve said here. Hence your rude remarks to me!!!

On another note, and about my estimate of 50,000 deaths due to JWs refusing blood between 1961 and 2011, a colleague having dialogue recently with Dr. Beliaev shared that Dr. Beliaev had read this estimate and its bases and opined that the figure 50,000 was “a pretty conservative estimate”.

Marvin Shilmer

250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood

Share this