Letter About Blood Fractions

by Bangalore 36 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  eyeuse2badub

  The fundament error in the reasoning is that blood is too sacred to be put to any use other than on the sacrificial altar. Island man

  I too have long reasoned and even argued that if "blood is too sacred to be be put to any other use than on the sacrificial alter", then why do JW's gladly (and reasonably) 'donate blood' in order to have their blood tested in order to detect diseases or test the level of certain medications in their system. Of course the obvious reason is because JW's want to know their health condition in order to live longer and better. Is the blood that a JW 'donates' for a blood test used on the 'sacrificial alter'? But by 'donating blood' for a simple blood test, does that violate the JW blood doctrine? What happens to the blood that a JW 'donates' when it goes off to a labratory for testing?

  Just saying!

  eyeuse2badub
• 

  TD

  I see they're still trying to baffle the flock with semantic legerdemain. Have they no shame at all?

  It is not intellectually honest to use an unconditionally inclusive assertion (i.e. "The important point is that blood, as long as it could represent the life of a creature, should not be used for any purpose.") in support of a conditionally exclusive policy.

  Regardless of whether the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses officially endorses or otherwise approves of any uses of blood or not, if they do recognize that some uses of blood can in fact be distinguished from others, then it is clear that their prohibition against blood does not unconditionally include all uses of blood, it conditionally excludes some uses and not others. In other words, it's not a question about the use of blood, it's a question about the misuse of blood.
• 

  Pistoff

  For the Watchtower, the symbol, blood, is more important that the reality, life.

  Sacrifice the life, the reality, to worship the symbol.
• 

  snare&racket

  They think that to say servants of god 4000 years ago didnt understand blood fractions...and therefore it is not detailed in the bible ...AND THEREFORE we think it is up to the FDS to decide, totally negates their belief that god wrote the bible and that he WOULD know about the makeup of blood and the future dilemmas those verses caused. Blood fractions will save lives, those ambigous verses as watchtower indicates, have already led to many deaths. Ironically, WT advertise that the whole bible is relevant to modern man.... Hmmmm.

  This also does not explain why fractions were a sin to accept in the 80's as made clear in the blood brochure, what EXACTLY changed? They try to angle it that fractions are a new invention, but they are not ...and were available but forbidden by doctrines inthe last few decades! On what authority was that dangerous doctrine based? Remember you would be disfellowshipped from family and friends for breaking that rule and people died because of it.

  They are literally making it up as they go.

  Interestingly, I hope you kept a hard copy because it quite clearly says 'the faithful discreet slave published....' making evident that the FDS is a real religious, physical entity AND liable for what watchtower publish. such letters may prove very important for legal and historical reasons. Whoever has them or something similair, please, please keep them. It may make a huge difference to someone one day.

  snare x
• 

  problemaddict

  The entire narrative around blood has switched. Rather than get into the serious biblical arguements for and against, in order to understand the real intent of the law in light of context, they now focus on how blood is "bad for you".

  They have switched this ina sense to a medical arguement revolving around the fact that a person who does not take a transfusion but opts for some alternative methods, cell saver techniques, etc.... does better than a person jsut given blood. Its as if the opposition and medical community are looked at as a bunch of vampires who just want to use blood so that they continue to have a steady supply of it. What will we do without blood!

  Its really quite disturbing at this point. I think anyone would agree that it would ALWAYS be optimal to NOT LOSE your own blood. Duh! But to move that into the following arguement is just nonsense. "Jehovahs creation works better when it doesn't misuse blood, so that supports our overall point and the 'good health to you' admonition in scripture." I actually had a CO tell me this. He also told me that since Jehovahs Witnesses have experienced large growth through the various changes in blood and refusal of transfusions, that it is evident Jehovah has not heald the slave blood guilty, and continues to shine his blessing on his people.

  Once again, its dancing around the actual scriptural facts surrounding it.

  Oh yeah......blood settles out naturally into 4 components? As long as being spun in a centrifuge is considered "natural" I suppose.
• 

  CADSkin

  How many JW's have donated blood since fractions have been allowed? If they can use the system, can they donate?
• 

  ?me?

  EVERYTIME i get in a discussion about blood with my fellow brothers or sisters when they are saying "look what hospital or article says that NO

  BLOOD is the way to go" i remind them ......................................................"OUR" STANCE IS NOT MEDICAL!!!!!!!!! IT IS PURELY SCRIPTURAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! transfusions could be the best thing in the world, but JWs reject it because of scripture and sanctity, not medical benefits or problems. i do not know why the society wastes so much time trying to explain bloodless surgery as "medically good" or a "blessing" when that has NOTHING to do with our rejection of it...

  that being said, i also hate that you can eat the crust, pepperoni, mushrooms, and cheese off the "blood pizza", but you cant eat the sauce...... and "you are not eating pizza"......
• 

  snare&racket

  Hello ?me?

  I am training in medicine right now.

  We dont want to give oxygen to patients, but we give it if we need to.

  We dont want to give fluids to patients, but we give them fluids if they need them.

  We dont want to give medication to patient, but we give them medication if then need it.

  We dont want to give patient blood, but we give them blood if they need it.

  All of our interventions have REAL risks, we don't do it without reason! This year 500 people died from inappropriate fluid administration in the UK. Too much or too little water at the wrong time and place. We are well aware of the risks involved, BUT all these things save lives.

  When someone has had a car accident and they have lost a considerable amount of blood, there is NO ALTERNATIVE than blood. Fluids will increase the pressure in the system ,reduced due to blood loss, protecting the heart, but the body needs red blood cells so it can carry oxygen from the lungs to the organs, they can only go 12 minutes without oxygen. The risks of blood still exist, but are insignificant to the threat of death in such a scenario,

  Along comes Watchtower, they quote doctors talking about rying to reduce the use of blood in unnecessary procedures because of the risks. But this could not be more out of context! Recently the protocol of heart attack management was altered, now we dont give oxygen routinely, we only give it if their oxygen levels are 94% or below, because every intervention has risks.

  The Watchtower society are not qualified to talk as medically as they do, knowing what I know now, I look back at the things they wrote in their literature and I am astonished, ashamed and astounded that they wuld rather utter dangerous nonsense than admit they have been wrong all along.
• 

  JW GoneBad

  For what it's worth....the writer of this letter would make a good used car salesman....for sure!

  He would sell some poor unsuspecting soul a lemon and not loose a night's sleep over it!
• 

  sunny23

  ldrnomo do you still have a copy of the original letter you sent?

  Im curious to what you said about the alcohol analogy. I was 19 when that came out and taking technical communications in college and remember thinking it was a major Cum Hoc fallacy. It's comparing two situations including two substances that can't be analagous. Alcohol can't be injected intravenously to save a life, in fact it will kill a person so of course no doctor would be behind doing such a thing. This makes the analogy misleading to the readers as they quickly assume that injecting alcohol into your veins is crazy and thus so is blood.

  Island man i really liked your response! very concise and in a way I couldn't have worded better.