Blood = Organ Transplant Awake! '99

by waiting 45 Replies latest jw friends

  • waiting

    This was posted by JanG at another forum, she had not seen it before either.

    Has this been questioned, talked about, etc? I've not heard anything on it.....

    but then that's sometimes the case with me.


    Awake Aug 22 1999 page 31 states:

    Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary?

    Last November the above question was raised in a newspaper article written by
    Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in
    Brooklyn, New York. He wrote: "Today blood would probably not be approved as a
    medication, since it would not fulfill safety criteria of the Food and Drug
    Administration. Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing
    less than an organ transplant."

    Dr. Godec observed: "Organ transplant is the very last therapeutic option
    offered to patients. Because of the likelihood of servere side effects, patients
    are thoroughly informed about all the possible alternatives before a transplant
    is performed."

    Regarding blood transfusion, he concluded: "The benefit is so
    questionable that many surgeons have adopted a philosopy of 'transfusion
    avoidance' not only for medical but also for leagal reasons."

    A major problem with blood transfusions is that thousands of people have been
    infected with deadly diseases, including AIDS. Although methods of screening
    blood have improved in many places. Dr. Godec pointed out: "A potential danger
    arises from blood donated by individuals who are infected but have not yet
    developed antibodies that could be detected through screening tests."

    Concluding his article, Dr. Godec addressed the question raised above: "As
    physicians and surgeons develop better understanding of the physiology of oxygen
    delivery and recognize that hemoglobin levels need not be as high as previously
    thought, it almost always becomes possible for them to find alternatives to
    transfusion. As recently as a year ago the demanding surgeries of heart and
    liver transplanation were fraught with such majore blood loss that they were
    deemed always to require massive amounts of blood replacement. Now, both
    procedures have been performed without resort to transfusion.

    "It is quite possible that in the very near future transfusion will be
    eliminated altogether..... Transfusion is not only costly and dangerous; it
    simply does not provide the highest quality of care that patients deserve."


    bold caption was added.

    Edited by - waiting on 19 August 2000 16:55:45

    Edited by - waiting on 19 August 2000 17:5:19

  • Carmel

    It seems to me that the thin theological ice that the witnesses are on when it comes to the issue of blood transfusion makes them try to rationalize or beef up their position by trying to argue based on medical issues surrounding use of blood.

    Strike two! Their science is as bad as their theology! How much time do they spend decrying barbers for practicing tooth-pulling? How many other new diciplines do they take on? The further out on a limb they get the more they grasp for ideas to save their balderdash!


  • Carmel

    Oh, I forgot!

    Waiting, honey, did I tell you that I love you? You put those false teeth in and I just do back flips over you!

    Carmel, wishing he knew how to use them smiley faces!!!!!!!XXXXXX

  • Frenchy

    carmel: Look directly below your 'reply window' and you will see a link "Add emotions to your message' Click on that and follow the directions.

    I find it amusing that they quote someone as saying that blood transfusions are really organ transplants. Transplants are allowed but transfusions are not? How do you explain?

    -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

  • waiting


    Don't tell that fool our secrets![8>]

    Carmel, SweetPea,

    At your age and weight, I'd be careful of those back flips - might be a big flop - my teeth in or not!

    If you don't learn to laugh at trouble, you won't have anything to laugh at when you're old. Edgar Howe

    Is that where you're at, you ol dog?


  • Carmel

    Waiting, Oh Ancient One,

    Being a former competive diver, I certainly know the difference between a back flip and a back flop! I better be carefull, this diving thang could get me carried away....


    obtw, I'm trying protein supliments to put on a little weight just for you!

    Edited by - carmel on 21 August 2000 23:14:11

  • waiting

    Carmel honey,

    I may be ancient, but I'll NEVER be as old as you. You'll always be SEVENlong, long, years older than me.

    Flips or flops - I'd be careful if I were as old as you, you old fool. And I'll never be as old as you!

    Much Younger Than You Waiting

  • Andyman

    I remember having a discussion about it on another board last year.

    At the time I wondered it if was another way of slipping in something, blood transfusions being a organ transplant, in order to sooner or later do away with the current policy on blood transfusions.

    This along with the new policy that you automaticaly DA yourself by taking a transfusion seems to be leading to something.

    I really think that in 5 years or so the transufsion policy will be done away with and getting one will simply be a "conscience" issue.

    Of course they need to "wean" the rank and file on this so as to avoid any legal problems that might arise.

    This is just my opinion on the matter.

    Take care.


  • RedhorseWoman

    Andyman, on reading this, I had the same impression as you did. Organ transplants are not forbidden any longer. If the idea can be slid in that blood is an organ, and organ transplants are not forbidden, blood should not be forbidden.

    New light comes in packs of 4....the wattage varies, however.

  • Pathofthorns

    I think this years NO Blood Card renewal meeting in January will be interesting. I would suspect that the Society will have to issue cards with new wording, and will end up having to give more information on the reasons why.

    Its very sad that the average Witness only knows to "abstain from blood" and actually believes that we do this. There is this paranoia that "blood is bad medicine" and will kill you, that there is absolutely no need for it.

    I remember the paranoia well myself, this horrible feeling when I would forget my wallet with my card in it.

    An interesting thing too, lots of DFed Witnesses still refuse blood, and many "know its the truth" because of what they believe our stand is on the matter.

    Perhaps more will ask questions when the cards are changed.

    The line:

    "I also know that there are various dangers associated with blood transfusions. So I have decided to avoid such dangers and, instead, to accept whatever risks may seem to be involved in my choice of alternative nonblood management."

    With new changes to policy, Witnesses are no longer protected from those dangers, and now face the same dangers if they choose certain permitted components of blood. The statement on the card is no longer accurate.

    The term "nonblood management" is misleading to Witnesses and physicians who may believe nonblood to mean exactly how it sounds to include products derived from blood as well. After all, when you're dealing with a religion known for its fanatical stance on refusing blood, what doctor would not logically wonder if that includes the components that make it up as well?

    I would love to know how this will work itself out. What a complete mess the Society has gotten itself into with this one.


    Edited by - Pathofthorns on 24 August 2000 6:29:32

Share this