by ILoveTTATT 27 Replies latest jw friends
Hi ABibleStudent,
I would run into copyright problems... these articles are all copyrighted and they have to be purchased for them to be freely available to others. Perhaps I can contact the newspapers and say it's for educational purposes, maybe I can get them for free.
I have to agree with Flamegrilled about the double edged info available. In my dub experience there were several that sufferred extremely low blood counts, but survived. That does not make it right, just shows that medicine is not an exact science.
In the case of the 63 year old woman she had an absolute right to refuse a medical tratment , whatever the reason, whether we agree with her reason or not. This link shows that she died about a fortnight after the decision and she was very ill , so it is not known whether the transfusion would have saved her
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/judge-prevents-naming-jehovahs-witness-6752296
This might make me sound like a J W apologist, but of course I am most certainly not. I can see through their misapplication of scripture and psuedo medical science - I just support an adult individual's right to choose what happens to their own body. It is a sad day if The State administers enforced medication.
http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/JwDEATHS75.htm
Here's something to add to the list... it's another list.
Bluesbrother - it depends on the country. Countries such as Australia, UK, USA, Canada, etc have essentially made two categories of patients: underage MUST have the transfusion, adults can decide on their own.
Countries like Brazil, Argentina, Spain, etc... have various levels of this, depending on the judge. Brazil is the other extreme: doctors can do anything they believe will save your life, even against your will, even if you're an adult.
To solve the "what ifs", I think that it is best to include in the table other details. I think that there CAN be cases where the blood was absolutely essential for life... also, to be fair, leaving the cases where the blood was administered and the person still died, or leaving the cases where the blood was withheld and the person lived... If those details are provided in the news story, they should be included somehow.
Maybe it would be good to just have a database of the people who have been involved in making this tough decision, leaving a link, a little bit of details regarding the case, and then allowing people to decide.
Currently, I have over 200 cases, and there are some interesting patterns to be seen. The three most common causes of JW's being in the news because they need blood (and, supposedly, die because of its denial) are:
Cancer - Leukemia being the most common
Accidents/Trauma
Mothers after giving birth
And, of course, the many hundreds of cases where babies have been taken away from their parents, given a BT, and given back to the parents.
my 21 yr old son told me about a local jw teenager. who was in a car accident. the family refused blood and the boy died. dead end story they killed the kid
Hi JYD,
Sorry to hear that. This was recently? Do you know if it went on the news?
I have 83 recorded deaths so far... Most of them completely preventable.
Very sad.
The % of cases in which the lack of blood treatment is the fully proven cause of death would be close to zero I think.
I agree. There are no guaranteed outcomes when it comes to medical treatment, especially if someone is ill enough that they are needing to have transfusions.
While some times it can probably be said that "they did because of refusing blood" the reality is often that they refused on particular medial option which may or may not have contributed to their deaths.
How much of a contribution would be the judgement of the surgeons involved in each case.
Most of them completely preventable.
I think it would be better to say "where refusing blood was a possible factor in their death".
I read in some of the reports that doctors estimated XX% probability of survival with blood, and X% without. In one case it was 90% vs 5%. So it would be tough to argue that the refusal of blood was THE cause of death, the cause of death was the previous condition, but it can be argued that the lack of blood precipitated the death.
What you would need to do is record such probabilities for those that you have a statement of and perhaps use the average for the rest and then run a number of monte-carlo simulations to come up with the likely end count.
The trouble with listing them all is that it then gives the impression that all were assumed to be 100%.
Obviously if you take any random variation into account then listing them all becomes problematic (you still can't say definitely whether someone should or shouldn't be on a list, just that they may have been counted in some simulation).
I love ttatt; all i can tell you is that my son told me about a jw school mate that died in a car accident went to the hospital and refused blood. my son is not a jw. I think my son learn a lesson of what I have been telling him for years. that the jw's are poison
