JWs: isn't it a hassle when the media brings the truthful outcome of your blood doctrine to light?

Question

sure, every medical procedure has risks, blood transfusions being one of them. But bleeding to death is final, and I imagine someone would rather live and deal with the risks than have no options because they die. Well, if it were me. Can't speak for everyone else.

Thanks for the great article, Moises. Stamler says:

"The issue of transfused blood being potentially harmful to patients is one of the biggest problems facing American medicine," continued Stamler, who is a professor of cardiovascular and pulmonary medicine. "Most people do not appreciate that blood has the intrinsic capacity to open blood vessels, thereby enabling oxygen to get to tissues. Banked blood cannot do this properly."

However, transfusions are still critically important, Stamler said.

"Banked blood is truly a national treasure that needs to be protected," Stamler said. "Blood can be life saving, only it is not helping the way we had hoped and in many cases it may be making things worse. In principle, we now have a solution to the nitric oxide problem--we can put it back--but it needs to be proven in a clinical trial."

sorry to upset. this matter is close to my heart.

Answer 1

The media is a two-headed beast (or a double-edged sword- chose your metaphor). It is into sensationalism and never allows facts to get in the way of a good sob story. So we need to treat it with caution. What strikes me as interesting, therefore, is that the media shows amazing restraint in reporting accounts of JWs losing lives because of their 'no blood transfusion' stance. I've been following the recent one on an English JW woman dying after severe and sudden blood loss after giving birth to twins. The media cannot be faulted for its coverage in Britain, even though they only get to report the tip of the iceberg. Medical confidentiality laws prevent them hearing all but the most occasional event of loss of life due to the blood stance. And the Watchtower Society absolutely does not give anything like the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on how its members are affected.

I have Society literature going back decades. They boast about 'good' JWs who stuck to the blood 'rules' and lived to tell the tale. Well, praise God that they lived. I'm more concerned for those who died and whose tragic stories we never got to hear about. I don't think JWs have any idea of just how many of their brothers and sisters die. Their beloved Society does not release figures, you see. Wonder why not?

The Society likes to tell its members that blood transfusions cause more harm than good, that anyone receiving one is almost bound to be contaminated with something horrendous - the HIV virus, Hep.C, sexual disease, personality changes. No right-thinking individual would ever want a blood transfusion! But hang on a minute - the Society has also said that this is a theological matter, not a medical one. Their reasons for refusing (a few) blood treatments are entirely based on their interpretation of a few Bible verses. Even if there wasn't a single bad medical outcome from accepting blood, all JWs would be bound to refuse them. 'It's against God's laws!' they shout - well, until bad outcomes for refusing force them to use medical reasons to bolster their weak theological case. The tragedy is that all JWs think they have a sound theolog\ical case! That's because they accept their leaders interpretations without ever questioning them. Their leaders are God's channel today, you see. To question them is to question God! The media will never dare to say that, but I dare to say it here, and so do many other Christians. JWs bring God's good name into disrepute by insisting that 'Jehovah' demands they die rather than accept blood transfusions. It is their LEADERS who make that demand. It's time JWs learned to distinguish their fallible leaders from God Almighty.

Answer 2

Why don't you tell it to all the people that died because they refused a blood transfusion that could have saved them? Oh, you can't...

Fact is that the number of people that banked blood has saved far outweighs the number of deaths due to it. Some women die during childbirth, but the overwhelming majority still decide to have children, right? There are risks with any medical procedure, but that doesn't make them wrong.

If you take the verse about blood literally, we would be in big trouble. How do you abstain from blood? Blood is in us, it is in the food we eat, blood is tested daily for diseases. Blood analysis helps to reveal what is wrong with a person physically. If surgeons abstained from blood, many people would die because no one would do their surgery because they would have to deal with blood. Nobody could eat meat because animals would not be killed. Blood, in other places in the Bible, refers to murdering someone. Why does Acts 15:29 pertain only to blood transfusions.

And the answers that list the medical reasons that blood transfusion is bad really aren't relavent. There were no blood transfusion in New Testament times, the first one wasn't done until the 1600s. How could the apostles have been referring to a procedure that did not exist when they made that statement?

As far as the Peru article is concerned, did you read that they don't screen their blood donations properly? That in itself indicates that if the proper precautions are taken, blood transfusion becomes much, much less of a risk.

Answer 3

Moises, is Peru considered a Third World Country? It makes a difference as they wouldn't be up to date on some things. IF JHVH Witnesses "blood law" is found to be false because of wrong interpretation's of scriptures; would that fall under the guilt of "blood stain hands"? How would the law take action on such useless death this misinterpretations caused?

Answer 4

Some of you should check out how many Jehovah's Witnesses undergo serious surgery every year without blood (when the doctor says it's NECESSARY) and SURVIVE.

Of course such stories don't make the news headlines....

It is not mentioned in the article, but are the doctors SURE she would have lived with a transfusion?In my home country, a mother travelled from her home country to ours for surgery, the doctors where she comes from refused to operate without blood.

Her story was in the headlines everyday, with people accusing her of hating her baby, etc (But why would she travel to a country where she had no family just in search of a doctor if she did not love her baby?)

Anyway, a lot of doctors in my country have taken up the challenge of bloodless surgery, they realise it is beneficial and they operated (non-Witness doctors, by the way)

I was following the story, and after the successful op, I saw ONLY ONE article talking about it. The story just disappeared, and with silence after all that hype I'm sure many think that the baby died.

The baby was nicknamed "Baby B" or "Baby Beatrice"- Googling that will probably get you some references.

EDIT: A hassle? No. last week it was the Baptists, this week the JWs, next week someone else. News gets stale, you know.

Answer 5

What? I am a Jehovahs Witness and there isnt really anything to hassle about. The Bible clearly states that you must not take blood. Acts 15:28,29: " For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” Here is a good articel you should read about blood
and how a physican accepted Gods view of blood.

Answer 6

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/14/peru-hiv.html

"Peru Closes Blood Banks after HIV Infection"

"Health Ministry investigation found that Judith Rivera, a 44-year-old mother of four, was infected with the virus after receiving blood transfusions during an operation for a tumor in her uterus in April at a state hospital in Callao, Lima's port city.

Vallejos confirmed three other cases, including that of an 11-month-old infant, all at the same hospital..."

Answer 7

@Bar-recover from your ego dude the deepest pronoun utilization in connection with the Holy Spirit is MASCULINE, i.e. and hence very own. John sixteen:7 "yet I inform you the fact, it extremely is on your benefit that i pass away; for if i do no longer pass away, the Helper3875 [parakleetos]shall no longer come to you; yet while i pass, i visit deliver Him1565 [auton] to you. (NAS) parakleetos = masculine , hence auton = masculine, i.e. “him” consultation 6-7 Addendum 4 John sixteen:8 "And He1565 [eikinos], while He comes, will convict1651 [elengxei] the worldwide suitable to sin, and righteousness, and judgment; (NAS) parakleetos = masculine , hence eikinos = masculine, i.e. “he” elengxei = masculine style of “he will convict” John sixteen:13 "yet while He1565 [eikinos], the Spirit of certainty, comes, he will guide3594 [hodeegeesei] you into all the fact; for he won't speak2980 [laleesei] on His very own initiative (of Himself 1438 [heautou]), yet despite the fact that He hears191 [akousei], he will speak2980 [laleesei]; and he will disclose312 [anangelei] to you what's again. (NAS) hodeegeesei, laleesei, akousei, anangelei = masculine conjugations that combine “him” with the verb heautou = masculine, “Himself” Acts 13:2 And mutually as they have been ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit pronounced, "Set aside for Me3427 Barnabas and Saul for the paintings to which I certainly have referred to as them." (NAS) 3427 moi (moy): KJV-- I, me, mine, my. = 1st man or woman John 14:26 "however the Helper3875 [parakleetos], the Holy Spirit4151 [Pneúma], whom the daddy will deliver in My call, He1565 [eikinos] will coach you all issues, and convey on your remembrance all that I pronounced to you." (NAS) parakleetos = masculine , hence eikinos = masculine, i.e. “he” John 15:26 "while the Helper3875 [parakleetos] comes, whom i visit deliver to you from the daddy, {it relatively is} the Spirit4151 [Pneúma] of certainty, who proceeds from the daddy, He1565 [eikinos] will undergo witness of Me, (NAS) parakleetos = masculine , hence eikinos= masculine, i.e. “he” via the way, the two/3rds majority vote is extremely difficult however look who we are speaking approximately.

Answer 8

I'm sorry Witnesses you are so deeply deceived on this issue it just upsets me.

You misinterpret a script from the bible that is clearly talking about diet to place yourselves separate from a population ( BTW classic cult control behaviour)

The real problem is that when you actually look at the policies you will realize how silly and hypocritical they are;

Simple Example

Deuteronomy 12:16
But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water.

Yet you are allowed to take individual blood components (albumin, globulin, clotting factors, fibrin)

All derived from Stored Blood .

If you actually believed what you constantly claim you must refuse all Blood. Meaning you must refuse the following

All blood parts
All Blood “replacements”: all are derived from stored blood
All Transplants: all organs contain significant amount of blood
All non kosher meat

so its ok for others to donate blood, and for you to consuming but not ok for you to contribute to your fellow man.
Thus you live on the Blood of others as a parasite eating the blood of its hosts

Mosies

Point to remember in your article :

"However, transfusions are still critically important, Stamler said.

"Banked blood is truly a national treasure that needs to be protected," Stamler said."

Answer 9

tell that to the people who have been contaminated by tainted blood due to transfusions.

Answer 10

They Hate it when that happens! They have resorted to calling you and I names...they means that they have a lousy argument.


This matter upsets me as well...If it weren't for this false law, my grandmother would still be here.


When did Moises go to medical school. I thought he was a bus driver?