Blood Issue - Help!

by ChristianObserver 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • ChristianObserver
    ChristianObserver

    Hello :o)

    The following posting has appeared on the Topic Suggestions folder of the Christianity Board of AOL.

    Any comments? And who is J Richard Brown? Any idea where the poster found this - I'm assuming from the net somewhere?

    "Dear All,

    Certain members of this board have been using the subject of JWs policy on Blood transfusions and saying that too deny themselves and their children transfusions is either suicide or murder.

    Nevertheless, here is an article which shows how advanced we have become in surgery. it is also noteworthy, that medicine must realise that the progress that has been made deserves further study, since there was a conference on bloodless.

    Bloodless medicine continues gaining ground in 2001

    Four pencil-hole incisions and 48 hours later, Ronald Jones walked out of Englewood Hospital a new man. Tumors in his kidney had taken their toll on his well-being for over 30 years. Using a minimally invasive laparoscopic procedure by which the surgeon can see inside the abdominal cavity without making a large incision, the surgical team encapsulated and removed the damaged kidney, and they didn't use a drop of blood. "I never thought it could be
    this easy. I feel like I have a new lease on life!" Ron said when it was all over.

    Internationally, the number of hospitals that now specialize in bloodless medical treatment has surpassed 200. A decade ago the count was less than ten. The United States is at the forefront of developing this valuable aspect of medical practice, with facilities performing these procedures in nearly every state. Additionally over 29,000 doctors in the United States, over 90,000 around the world, have chosen to hone their skills in applying bloodless
    methods.

    A hospital falls into the category of a bloodless medical center when it has an organized, structured program consisting of a core team of physicians who are dedicated to providing medical treatment without the use of blood transfusions.

    For a variety of reasons, doctors and surgeons are more disposed than ever to treat patients without blood. Health care providers now turn to bloodless surgery to ease blood donor shortages, reduce risk of infection, battle blood-borne diseases and cut costs.

    Jehovah's Witnesses primarily refuse blood for religious rather than medical reasons. However, many have acknowledged that this refusal helped avoid contracting many costly and even fatal diseases, such as AIDS and hepatitis.

    When a Witness faces a serious medical procedure, he can tap into any of the 121 "hospital liaison committees," which have some 900 members on call. The objective of the liaison committees is to make information on bloodless medicine available to individuals seeking this form of treatment. They also make articles from professional medical journals and data sheets available to medical personnel who are trying to respect the conscientious stand of the
    patient. To assist health care providers, each Witness is encouraged to fill out and carry a medical directive and a legal document sometimes referred to as a durable power of attorney (DPA) that reflect his or her personal decisions on medical care.

    "Bloodless medicine is the wave of the future," Ronald Jones says, reflecting on the success of his procedure. "I'm sure I'm just one of millions who will benefit."

    Contact: J. Richard Brown, telephone: (718) 560-5600"

    Thanks!

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    J.R. Brown is the "spin doctor" (aka public relations dude) for Bethal.

    Of course JR does not want to tell people what happens when there is a trauma due ot a car accident and you are bleeding out. In these trauma situations, bloodless therapy (or blood conservation)options will not save you and you will likely die.

    He likely found this "crap" article at the WTS's media site - http://www.jw-media.org

    hawk

    http://www.ajwrb.org

  • ChristianObserver
    ChristianObserver

    Hello :o)

    Thanks for the info on JR Brown Hawk :o)

    Any AOL subscriber who wishes to comment on the posting can find the board in the following way (it's not open to those who do not subscribe to AOL though!):

    Type in Keyword: Christianity
    At the bottom left hand corner of the new page there is a clickable link: Post on the boards.
    A new box will then appear. Click the bottom link (red button) to go to the Christianity Board.
    In new box, select Topic Suggestions folder and then 'Find since', searching since the beginning of May.
    The thread is entitled: Re: Bloodless Operations.

    The blood issue often appears on that board and is responded to via cut and pastes from WTBTS information.

    Happy reading!

  • ChristianObserver
    ChristianObserver

    Hello again :o)

    Sorry to be a pain with a further request for information - especially when the paedophilia issue is so pressing atm - but does anyone know anything about the following which is continuing on the AOL board with cut and pastes from WBTS literature:

    "Cooley pioneered bloodless surgery in the 1960's. Jehovah's Witnesses played a part in this.

    *** g82 6/22 26 Jehovah's Witnesses-The Surgical/Ethical Challenge ***
    In 1977, Ott and Cooley 9 reported on 542 cardiovascular operations performed on Witnesses without transfusing blood and concluded that this procedure can be done "with an acceptably low risk." In response to our request, Cooley recently did a statistical review of 1,026 operations, 22% on minors, and determined "that the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah's Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others."
    Similarly, Michael E. DeBakey, MD, communicated "that in the great majority of situations [involving Witnesses] the risk of operation without the use of blood transfusions is no greater than in those patients on whom we use blood transfusions" (personal communication, March 1981). The literature also records successful major urologic 10 and orthopedic surgery.

    *** g77 11/8 29 Watching the World ***
    รท "Cardiovascular operations can be performed safely without blood transfusion," said the September 19, 1977, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association in a report on 542 heart operations on Jehovah's Witnesses without blood transfusions. The report, by Doctors David A. Ott and Denton A. Cooley of Houston, Texas, stated that they operated without blood because "we believe that a patient should have a right to make his or her own decision, and that the physician has a moral responsibility to respect the wishes of the patient." The doctors also noted: "The surgeon who agrees to treat Jehovah's Witnesses should respect their religious beliefs or refer them elsewhere."

    *** rs 74 Blood ***
    ." Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: "We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah's Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients." (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10)

    *** w78 9/15 28-9 Observations About Blood Transfusions ***
    But consider information found in the June 1978 issue of the American College of Surgeon's journal Bulletin (Vol. 63, No. 6).
    This issue dealt with the topic "The Ethics, Morals and Religion of Surgery." And it contained the article "Ethics in Surgery: Going Beyond Good Science" written by Dr. J. E. Dunphy, who has been described as "one of the grand old men of American medicine." He is professor emeritus in surgery at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco. Dr. Dunphy observed:
    "I don't believe good science is enough. Some years ago, in a lecture before the Royal Society of Medicine in England, Lord Hunt said, 'Faith and religion are very close. I do not believe that one can practice medicine, or for that matter do anything else well and lead a full and useful life, without faith in something on which to base thought and conduct. . . . Everything that increases a patient's religious faith, or faith in himself, in his treatment, or in his doctors, is worthwhile and worth encouraging.'"
    That led Dr. Dunphy into the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. He said:
    "We have had a number of patients at our hospital over the last 12 years who have been Jehovah's Witnesses, and we have operated without blood transfusions. I may be wrong, but I cannot recall a patient who died because of lack of transfusion. I agree, however, a patient may have become anemic through the course of the day.
    "I was fascinated to find a paper just published by [heart surgeon] Denton Cooley reporting on more than 500 major cardiac operations involving Jehovah's Witnesses performed without transfusion and showing a mortality rate of 5 percent. The figures are comparable to his figures on patients given adequate transfusion."
    Dr. Dunphy concluded: "Transfusion certainly makes the surgeon feel better, but it may not make the patient feel better. Perhaps we all have a tendency to transfuse to make ourselves more comfortable. I think when we have a Jehovah's Witness, we'll do well to consider his point of view."
    Bulletin also presented Dr. Dunphy's reply when he was asked what to do if a Witness patient began to bleed postoperatively and did not respond to nonblood plasma volume expanders.
    "I think I would urge the patient to change his mind and accept a transfusion. But I would also point out that if a patient-and I am talking about the straightforward operation . . .-if that patient isn't doing well and you think he is bleeding, a transfusion isn't the right thing for him anyway. The right thing is [an] operation to stop the bleeding. I think if you move rapidly you can still save the patient. That's why I say I can't recall a patient of mine who succumbed from progressive hemorrhage because he was a Jehovah's Witness. . . . "

    Thanks :o)

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    Here are some useful links that give the other side of this issue:

    http://www.ajwrb.org/physicians/doyle-risksavoiding.html

    http://www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml

    Sam Beli

    "...religion opposes the commandments of Almighty God." Violence by J. F. Rutherford 1938

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan
    Jehovah's Witnesses primarily refuse blood for religious rather than medical reasons.

    This really isn't correct, in my observation. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood for the following reasons:

    1. Because it is part of the JW package. They hope it never becomes an issue for them.
    2. They fear disfellowshipping, which in turn leads to death at Armageddon.
    3. They don't fully understand the WT's position on blood. If they saw how inconsistent it is, they would be shocked. But JW's are too busy to question anything or to research a matter in-depth. For a great expose of the inconsistencies previously mentioned:

    http://www.xjw.com/blood.html

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    The AJWBR position seems to be quite balanced. It appears they acknowledge the benefits of bloodless surgery but at the same time realize that bloodless options are not always the most effective or available. In those instances blood might be the option that will have a higher degree of success.

    I don't believe AJWRB attempt to minimize that blood transfusions carry certain risks, but realize these risks must be put into perspective. Further, most JWs have the unrealistic perception that blood transfusions will kill them and acceptable alternatives do not have elements of risk. This is a huge exaggeration of the facts.

    If the Bible clearly condemned the use of blood in this way and there existed no other reasonable way of looking at the matter from a Biblical point of view other than what the Society's present position is, then I would have to respect that position.

    The reality is that other reasonable ways of looking at the matter do exist and the Society's present position is full of holes and inconsistencies. The sad thing is they have not been willing to admit this to their members and allow them to conscientiously make these decisions for themselves.

    Path

  • ChristianObserver
    ChristianObserver

    Hello Hawk, Sam, Dan and Path :o)

    Many thanks for your contributions and links :o)

    Much appreciated :o)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit