Article in New Yorker magazine

by InquiryMan 18 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    It is narrow minded to consider changes in medicine that are positive in this regard as somehow brought about by Jehovahs Witnesses. They are brought about by good science and the practice of medicine as a "do no harm" culture. The desire of JW's to refuse blood many times to their own peril in emergency situations, is very different that a desire to perhaps be willing to increase risk during surgery by not making it available as a tool.

    The flat fact is JW's still die from this. Doctors try to keep people from dying. So while respecting peoples wishes in non emergency matters in particular, they also find out that perhaps the industry has not evolved away from this system as much as it could have. The reality is that as science and progression makes blood less and less necessary, or focuses more on fraction compounds and specialty treatment, that JW's take a victory lap.

    they shouldn't. They are missing the point of their own doctrine.

  • prologos
    DesirousOfChange36 minutes ago

    I'm shocked that a respectable magazine would print this

    Yeah, New Yorker taking a NJ story seriously? but:

    Good science, doing more with less.

  • sir82

    "Everything about us is carried in our blood," said Ortiz. "Our personality

    This was official WTS doctrine thru the 1960's, maybe even early 70's.

    One of the non-Biblical reasons for refusing a blood transfusion was that you would (not could, would) acquire the personality traits of the blood donee.If the blood came from a murderer, you would become a murderer.

    And since you never knew from whom the donated blood came, you wouldn't ever want to take that risk.

    Sounds like the guy quoted is an old-timer, someone who was around then, and heard that point emphasized in talks or read it several times in print.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    Anyone know how I could get a staff writer for the new yorkers e mail? I would love to correspond with her regarding her series. It looks like there are 2 more to come.

    I thought the article was fair. It wasn't untrue, and seemed pretty concise.

  • steve2

    The story of some mesasurable improvements in medicine through caution is worth telling so I am not shocked it has been told.

    Indirectly, JWs have contributed to health professionals being more attentive to their surgical procedures to avoid unnecessary blood loss. It is good, competent practice.

    This is not dissimilar to a medical practice being unable to purchase a once readily available product so needing to find a competent and effective way to keep the patient safe. Often it results in a break through of sorts - and science is based on responsble and measurable experimentation - often driven by necessity (and patient consent - which in this case is a given).

    We ought not grind our teeth because of JWs indirect contribution to some important aspects of medical advances - but we ought not therefore conclude the blood ban is universally defensible. It clearly is not - and its imposition across an entire set of believers is hugely wrong on so many levels.

    I would have like the New Yorker to have run the article with a more investigative approach along the lines of Pros and Cons.

  • InquiryMan

    This might be the topic of the remaining two articles yet to be published...

  • umbertoecho

    Steve2 Oh, I suppose you're right, it;s just that they crow and brag so much when things like this are printed. This makes me so angry. I would accept this if it didn't mean some magazine or a broadcast of some sort wasn't inevitably bound to come out of this.

    I do accept in principle that this blood issue may have come as a result of JW beliefs, but I also know that the AIDs disease was also a factor in changing many policies. It made a huge change in so many areas of collecting storing and deciding how blood would be used.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    The email address I found is this.

    [email protected]

    I sent her a nice e mail complimenting the article. Clearly she has focused on the aspect of their impact. I basically asked her to consider that while this has been an unintended virtue related to their refusal of blood, that many have died for this campaign.

    I also mentioned the fact it is enforceable through shunning, and for her to consider the element that creates in the doctor patient relationship. How many JW's behind closed doors say give me the blood?......lots!

  • ShirleyW
    THX problemaddict2 - I feel like sending a msg myself to that email, asking if the next two articles will include that JWs can now take blood fractions, but what about the JWs who have died decades ago before they got "new light" and were not permitted to take any form of blood.

Share this