WTS Double Standard on the Blood Issue
This is what the WTS calls primary components. To be a blood fraction in the WTS terminology it would have to be something that is only part of the above.
Note this chart:http://www.ajwrb.org/images/hlc2.jpg The first tier are the primary components and procedures that are not allowed.
The second tier are the fractions of those primary components and the procedures that ARE allowed.
XQ, you could call it a "fraction" but if the WTS does not agree with you, they would consider that you had DA'd yourself.
I am not arguing with you personaly or ajwb, but that chart is dated. THe watchtower allows blood to be removed from the body medicated and put back in. Such as for isotopic tracers.
And how do you answer hemogloulin fractions that contain more hemoglobin than packed RBCs? THe fraction is more of a "primary component" than the banned treatment. Thats like weighing a pound of chicken with bones vs a pound of boneless chicken. Think of it how will a JW reconcile that? I cant. Plasma is totally okay in context too. Platelete fibrin is okay. The only thing that you may have problems with is WBCs, but there are less wbcs in the blood than any of the allowed components other than clotting factor.
THe basically have changed the blood policy by not changing the blood policy. Now that you can't (or at least not suppossed to) ask if the person took any blood products nobody can investigate you. Sure there are people that will not take the four whole classes, but many will be free to take blood and not be penalized for it. Think about how many JWs commit fornication and as long as they keep the secret nobody knows. Now think about blood there is less in the bible about whole blood than fornication. How many rational jws will decide to compromise simply based on the confusion defense. "Well the DR said this part is less than that other part so I took it by aciddent".
Also it is not like the watchtower cares about individuals. That is for the locals to deal with. If several thousand JWs take blood and nothing happens to them it makes a better case PR wise. So even if they are reproved or unofficially shunned the watchtower benifits both ways. Plus how can the elders find out if they are not to talk to you about blood? Can anyone answer that. I am not being cynical I just want to know. If they are told in general to stay out of the medical end the only way I see it is if a jw nurse reports you. Even then they may df the nurse for gossip if the wt laywers think it is best. It would be odd if the blood issue starts to behave like the pedophile scandal. I can see it now a secret list of all the jws that recived blood with out reprisal. Famillies sueing because a family member died for a paper tiger.
That chart appeared in a WT study article this year. It doesn't change the fact that the WTS calls them "primary components" and that in their definition "fractions" are smaller parts thereof.
I'm sure that in the medical field they have a much different viewpoint. But then the WTS always emphasizes that it is for religious reasons not medical reasons JWs don't take blood transfusions.
A person can do whatever they want to regarding medical procedures. But JWs tread a fine line trying to interpret what the WTS means as to "fractions." Is it logical or reasonable, no, but they what WTS doctrine/policy is.
As the confidentiality in the hospital, it is tenuous at best despite recent legislation. I have seen the chart left with easy access to anyone walking down the hall. I brought that to the attention of the nursing staff who informed me it was too inconvenient to keep it in the room. I told them how inconvenient would it be if info got into the wrong hands and they found themselves in a courtroom. I guess they starting thinking the big B word when they saw me; but even then they did not comply. I kept asking them if they had picked out what they were going to wear in court. It only improved when we talked to our GP.
I can see what you're saying XQ about the official policy as far as the legal department goes, but Blondie is correct in that the local elders are going to look at the same info she quoted and if it's known or admitted that one of the four "components" was taken, there is going to be DAing.
In the end it's Brother Window-Washer who sits in judgement over the accused and the policy in the New York legal dept. doesn't mean anything.
Did you find the name of that DVD? Is it for all JWs or just the "blood elders"?
Sister B B brought home this DVD from the local literature desk. It is designed ,obviously, for the medical profesion . Not for the squeamish. As I recall when we viewed it once, it simply 'beat the drum' for bloodless surgery and had a load of different doctors saying how much better it was to work that way. i did not notice anything new in it.
It does not have the usuall literature department reference so I doubt if it is a normal stock item . The title is "Transfusion Alternatives - Documentary Series" (weird?) ...........It bears Copyright date 2004
i did not notice anything new in it.
BB look at the part about the "transfusion trigger" very carefully. In title 1 chapter 7(in windows media player) DR Howard L. Zauder is telling DRs hypothetically to transfuse JWs at 2 or 3 hemoglobin grams per deciliter (this is technically insane for any patient that did not loose blood volume due to trauma such as anemics). If jws cant have transfusions why would a DR need a transfusion trigger. Just to show you what I am saying http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=transfusion+trigger
You are a case in point of what I was saying. Most JWs won't notice or understand that part of the video, but any DR watchting will be confused. See guys BB is a pretty hip JW and he did not even see it. What in MFH are less observant JWs going to think. This is going to suck for any DR that watches the video, and tries to treat the average JW patient accordingly.
Sorry that it has taken a couple of days, but I have now been able to view the DVD again. (More interesting the second time around)
Xq's saw it this way.
I have the new blood DVD it clearly in medical terms (over the head of most JWs including JW nurses I know) tells the doctors when they should give JWs blood transfusions.
However, I believe that the context of DVD shows what it was intended for. "Transfusion Alternatives" It seems to be aimed at educating (???) the medical profession on various alternatives with a view to reducing the overall number of transfusions rather than providing specific rules or guidelines. Dr Zauder said that there may be no hard and fast rule, or trigger as to when the levels had to fall before one has to tranfuse. Professor Earnshaw said he had halved his team's transfusuin rate by lowering the trigger. .
But if one of J W's fell into the categegory below that mark, we know that they would not be permitted to have one. If that were the case then nobody need worry about having a transfusion in dire circumstances.
The thing seems to be encouraging 'best practice' while still saying that some things, like cell savers, may be acceptable to "Some witnesses" rather than giving such things general clearance. I guess any change would be comunicated to the congo rather than to doctors.
XQ's says I am a "Pretty hip JW" which is nice, but I have not been a J W for ages!
I guess any change would be comunicated to the congo rather than to doctors.
This is patently UNTRUE.
Not one witness I have had the guts to ask understands that they can now accept hemoglobin.
My wife was LIVID that I told her about the change; she turned her anger about the situation at me.
The WT has no interest in any rank and file understanding the maze of blood policy; if they did, no HLC would be needed, only a DPA and a blood card.
Think about it.
had a load of different doctors saying how much better it was to work that way.
When they were on screen did they have a banner run along the bottom:
"This is not a real doctor. It is an unpaid actor wanna-be from the laundry room impersinating a doctor. For real medical advise, please read the watchtower."
Or was that hidden in the credits?