BBC Programme Re. Contaminated Blood - Dub Blinkers

by BluesBrother 29 Replies latest jw friends

  • OrphanCrow

    Where the hell is that f***ing edit button??

    I forgot something - what about the JWs who are invested in the bloodless industry?

  • Ruby456

    If they're using blood then good for them

  • TheWonderofYou
    Ruby: i honestly think blood medicine will be replaced by other methods eventually

    I found this in a closing statement about PBM by the speakers of the Austrian platform blood, 20.-22th April, 2017

    "Aus heutiger Sicht wird die Fremdbluttransfusion noch viele Jahre Standard in unserem medizinischen Leben spielen, da ein der Transfusion gleichwertiger synthetischer Ersatz noch lange nicht erhältlich sein wird."
    "From today's point of view, foreign blood transfusion will continue to play a standard role in our medical life for many years as a synthetic substitute that is equivalent to the transfusion will not be available for a long time."
    "Vienna blooddays" 2017
    (The closing statement is to be find on the bottom of the homepage)

    On Saturday 25th Feb. 2017 JW and PBM expert Prof. Dr. Axel Hofmann has lectured about the international experiences on implementation of Patient oriented bloodcare in the practise in one of a series of talks entitled “Etablishing a new golden standard” at a PBM seminary in Austria. Another speaker was his co-author Prof. Spahn from Switzerland, who is also one of the board members of the International Foundation for Patient Blood Management IFPBM.

  • BluesBrother

    Thanks to all that have shown interest in this thread. Personally , like Ruby I would be delighted if a viable blood alternative was in common use . Given the investment in research, we can but hope.

    Rebel8 .. My statement that Factor Eight was acceptable (on a dub's conscience) was based on this quote.

    W/Tower 1978 6/15 p31 (QFR)

    What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease, such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies, hemophilia and Rh incompatibility? This seems to fall into a ‘gray area.’ Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God’s law; their conscience would permit such. (Compare Luke 6:1-5.) Others, though, feel conscientiously obliged to refuse serums because these contain blood, though only a tiny amount. Hence, we have taken the position that this question must be resolved by each individual on a personal basis. We urge each one to strive to have a clear conscience and to be responsive to God’s guidance found in His Word.

    Of course I cannot vouch for the attitude prevailing at the time among Witnesses

  • Ruby456

    yes great discussion bluesborthers

    wonderofyou thanks

    here is something from scotland which indicates the problems to come because of an aging population, so I think the race will be on to find other ways - other than blood transfusion - to deal with the same problems

    Blood is a scarce, expensive but vital healthcare resource, with more than 500,000 people in the UK receiving a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion each year.

    Edinburgh researchers have discovered benefits from reducing the use of blood transfusions and have been instrumental in the adoption of new practices that have saved money, risks and ultimately patients’ lives.
    Blood supply for transfusions is limited as not only is the donor pool shrinking due to an aging population and a stringent donor selection process, but demand is also increasing.

  • steve2

    Ruby, none of what you say about initiatives to find alternatives to full blood is unique to blood transfusions.

    Look at any "in demand" medical procedure and its availability will be sorely tested as demand grows but funding or availability does not keep pace.

    Besides, it is not a recent development that the pool of blood donors is limited and susceptible to increased demand - which is why the drive to publicize the need for safe donors continues.

    In many types of surgery, procedures have been developed that result in a reduced need for blood; this has little to do with JWs and more to do with medical staff taking additional precautions that reduces the need for - or the amount of - transfused blood. It is common knowledge in the medical field that experienced surgeons know how to reduce the need for blood but equally, may also be more wasteful of its use.

    However, where blood is the most in need is in Emergency Departments where patients often arrive having already suffered massive blood loss - and there are absolutely no safe alternatives other than immediate blood transfusions to quickly and safely restore blood-volume loss. No amount of tinkering and alternatives work in this setting.

    It is also very telling that when JW organization writes about safe and effective alternatives to blood, it is virtually always in the context of elective and not emergency surgery.

    In the everyday world of emergency medicine, talk of safe and effective alternatives to blood is pie-in-the-sky.

  • darkspilver
    Simon: What are you on about?

    Sorry, I thought I was being patient enough allowing six hours between my first new thread of the day and my second new thread within, I believe, an approximate 48-hour period - but I wasn't, I should have been more patient. I should have waited another 18 hours. I will try harder next time, so apologies for that.

    I view this forum as effectively being the 'newspaper of record' of the ex/jw community from the past 15 years - you can search this forum and generally find anything and everything of note ex/jw-wise - a huge amount of credit and respect goes to you for that - and that includes your noteworthy desire to keep the old/archive posts easily accessible - a truly useful resource.

    There is sadly though the usual internet-related problem of 'spam', and how it is dealt with.

    On the old forum it was very transparent - I believe it allowed for two new threads and 20 posts within a 24 hour period - and the forum gave you a running total from the last 24 hours - very transparent and understandable.

    Now it's moved to another system.

    It seems I can only post one new thread in any 24-hour period.

    This means I don't post everything I'd like to (which might be a good thing!?!). But, I also don't think I'm the only one - though I totally respect, and appreciate, that it's your forum.

    Anyway, while I was waiting for my thread to go 'live' on the forum, another member posted a similiar thread which went 'live' before mine did.

    If I had caught my thread going 'live' within the 30 minute editing time-frame I was going to try to completely re-edit it as a new topic (can you self-edit the forum section it is in??)

    Unfortunately I misjudged the time period my thread went 'live' (I also thought it was going to be a 24-hour delay, but it seemed to be a couple of hours shorter than that?). This meant that unfortunately I missed the 'self-editing' opportunity - sorry about that.

    I would have been very happy for my thread to have been either deleted or merged by the mods in order to avoid any subsequent confusion of people posting in either thread.

    Sorry for the confusion in my initial description - which was a kinda reversed-mis-use of terminology as the time-to-go-live was not set by me, but rather by the forum - while at the same time I was clock watching an expected time-to-go-live so that I could try to self-edit it to avoid duplication, so apologies for that.

  • Pete Zahut
    Pete Zahut

    It's one thing to choose for yourself to avoid using blood because there are health risks associated with it but it's another thing to used connect the dot scriptures to prove that using blood to save a life isn't allowable because it's against god's law and malign anyone who takes a transfusion.

    There are risks in taking antibiotics and and certain other medications and simply checking into the hospital is a health risk in itself but when a person needs those things badly enough, the odds are usually worth the risk.

    Just because there are health risks in using blood, doesn't mean the Watchtower Society was right about anything. Their stance was a biblical one rather than a health matter. Blood was abstained from because it was "sacred" not dangerous. Their religious stance just so happened to have an additional health related concern that worked in their favor.

  • Ruby456

    thanks steve - you emphasize my argument entirely from beginning to end


    Ruby, none of what you say about initiatives to find alternatives to full blood is unique to blood transfusions.

    Look at any "in demand" medical procedure and its availability will be sorely tested as demand grows but funding or availability does not keep pace

  • rebel8

    Hi BluesBrother,

    I (obviously) have strong emotions on this topic and perhaps I wasn't very nice in my reply. I'm sorry if I wasn't.

    I was referring to the secret F8 permissions written about by Ray Franz, and the fact that even when the official position was "conscience matter", we were still told point blank it is not ok to take F8. This was stated in conferences with elders, at assemblies and meetings.

    When it was 'officially ok', it would get you a marking talk and bloodguilt for stumbling others (which of course we know means jehoopla will execute you).

    When it was officially 'not ok', you would get disfellowshipped (and executed).

    The only course of action that would avoid execution and congregational punishment was to refuse F8.

    At one point, the position was reversed but not published, and wts called congregations they knew of who had hemophiliacs to tell them privately it was ok to take their medicine again.

    Either I was not 'known' or the elders in my congregation opted to not tell me.

    So there is a bit more to the story than what is published in the literature.

Share this