Originally posted by robbie carrobieTHIS is the big edict against transfusions? Transfusions are not even CLOSE to the sacrificing and using the blood to adorn alters and such. Transfusions use blood that NEVER see air. You do get that part don't you?
http://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=blood
This is using blood to PRODUCE life, to PROLONG life, not the killing of some animal and then eating it with blood inside.
Is this really the rational for not allowing transfusions even though it is proven to be effective in saving lives?
Besides, transfusions are a modern thing, not some kind of ancient tradition gone awry.
My wife would have been DEAD if it had not been for transfusions once. That is my own family.
You say the state has jurisdiction over whether transfusions are done to a child, does that mean that no matter what, adult JW's can and will refuse a transfusion that would save their lives? They would rather die than be saved by a transfusion? That just seems plain nuts.
Does that also include artificial blood transfusions?
Also, there are transfusions that use the patients own blood, take a quart out or so say a month before an operation, say if the person has an extremely rare blood type, and they get their own blood back during the operation.
Would THAT also be forbidden? Using their own blood?
13 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseyou are a free moral agent and retain the right to self determination as Jehovahs witnesses do, you want to take blood, its your right.
THIS is the big edict against transfusions? Transfusions are not even CLOSE to the sacrificing and using the blood to adorn alters and such. Transfusions use blood that NEVER see air. You do get that part don't you?
This is using blood to PRODUCE life, to PROLONG life, not the killing of some animal and then eating it with blood inside.
Is this real ...[text shortened]... eir own blood back during the operation.
Would THAT also be forbidden? Using their own blood?
It seems rather interesting to note that first century Christians would rather face death than offer up incense to an effigy of the roman Emperor and yet many refused to do so. Why do you think that was?
as to your other questions regarding alternative treatments there are many that are available to Jehovah's witnesses and indeed there are entire hospital dedicated to providing bloodless medicine including complex surgery.
There are many benefits to a bloodless approach. Research shows that patients who do not receive blood transfusions recover faster, experience fewer infections and leave the hospital sooner than those who do.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery
13 May 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course JW's have the right to desist, I respect that,
You retain the right of self determination to take blood transfusions the same as Jehovahs witnesses have the right to desist. What many people are absolutely ignorant of is that there are now due to medical science many alternatives.
I would not describe blood transfusion as an advancement after all they've been around since the 1600's 😲
although I simply do not understand your mindset.
The 1600's are still percieved to be a relatively modern era when you consider the grand scheme of things...
We've come a long way from drilling holes in our skulls to relieve headaches (trephining).
FYI:- I studied William Harvey back in my GCSE History course, and we had to write an essay with the following title:
"Does religion help or hinder medical progress?"
The Roman Catholic Church regarded the teachings of Galen (1st Century physician of the roman empire) to be 'absolutely correct' and, due to their influence, this was not contested until several centuries later, where the likes of William Harvey, louis pastuer, robert koch, alexander fleming etc would all engage in scientific experiments, and made discoveries that would go on to save millions of lives over the next coming centuries.
The development of blood transfusions is just one of many miracles of modern scientific breakthroughs,
none of which would have happened if religious authorities had anything to do with it,
as they would argue that this would have been against Gods will.
I personally believe that society has mostly moved on from that infantile mindset,
but alas, in JW's therein lies an unfortunate anomaly.
Some reading that may interest you, Robbie:
http://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/blood-transfusions-sustaining-the-purpose-of-god/
I wish to say no more on this matter, other than that I love my mother very much,
and I hope that the pain and torment that the words of JW's spoken to her will not have a long lasting effect.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainyes i suspect the literally hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a direct result of complications from blood transfusions or after receiving contaminated blood will concur with you and all will praise, 'the great God of science'. 🙄
Of course JW's have the right to desist, I respect that,
although I simply do not understand your mindset.
The 1600's are still percieved to be a relatively modern era when you consider the grand scheme of things...
We've come a long way from drilling holes in our skulls to relieve headaches (trephining).
FYI:- I studied William Harvey back i ...[text shortened]... t the pain and torment that the words of JW's spoken to her will not have a long lasting effect.
Please note i did not make this up.
There are many benefits to a bloodless approach. Research shows that patients who do not receive blood transfusions recover faster, experience fewer infections and leave the hospital sooner than those who do.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117434
13 May 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell thank goodness that medical science is not dependent on anything as arbitrary as what a chest-thumping Jehovah's Witness "suspects" may have happened.
yes i suspect the literally hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a direct result of complications from blood transfusions or after receiving contaminated blood will concur with you and all will praise, 'the great God of science'. 🙄
Your position on this matter (the position of the religious organisation you obey), is completely indefensible. If you had even a smidgen of intellectual honesty you would admit it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would be willing to wager that FAR more people have died as a result of NOT taking blood transfusions over the centuries compared to those who have suffered from such complications (the number of which is likely to further decrease as medical science improves).
yes i suspect the literally hundreds of thousands of persons who have died as a direct result of complications from blood transfusions or after receiving contaminated blood will concur
I quite like the look of Johns Hopkins Hospital actually, apparently it's been voted best overall hospital in the US for many years.
It may interest you to know that this hospital also has a Pathology section, dedicated to blood transfusions:
http://pathology.jhu.edu/department/divisions/transfusion/dispensing7.cfm
Also, did you know that the Johns Hopkins hospital was the FIRST EVER in the US to perform male-to-female sex reassignment surgery?
Way back in 1966, quite fascinating!
I was wondering what your views on that must be, as a god-loving person.
13 May 14
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainAs a god loving person?
I would be willing to wager that FAR more people have died as a result of NOT taking blood transfusions over the centuries compared to those who have suffered from such complications (the number of which is likely to further decrease as medical science improves).
I quite like the look of Johns Hopkins Hospital actually, apparently it's been voted ...[text shortened]... 66, quite fascinating!
I was wondering what your views on that must be, as a god-loving person.
did you not read he created them male and female? - Jesus Christ
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was informing you that the very same hospital you was so eager to include (repeatedly) in your attempts to refute the usage of blood transfusions also happens to perform the very same procedure...
As a god loving person?
did you not read he created them male and female? - Jesus Christ
...and on top of that, I mentioned cross-gender operations, another example of a typical type of practice that religious bodies would generally discredit, and I asked what your views might be regarding this.
Based on the answer that you have given, it is clear that you have nothing good to say.
I did once read that "God created Man in his own image",
but over time, I have come to understand that it was in fact Man who created God in his image.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainHey, That was MY line🙂
I was informing you that the very same hospital you was so eager to include (repeatedly) in your attempts to refute the usage of blood transfusions also happens to perform the very same procedure...
...and on top of that, I mentioned cross-gender operations, another example of a typical type of practice that religious bodies would generally discre ...[text shortened]...
but over time, I have come to understand that it was in fact Man who created God in his image.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainSo what? The hospital performs different procedures. Amazing who would have thought it. Your point whatever it is is rather vain because I was not advocating the hospital as being a paragon of virtue but what it has stated with regard to the efficacy of bloodless surgery which you have twice managed to ignore. Oh well if cheap shots is the best you can do then its really the best you can do.
I was informing you that the very same hospital you was so eager to include (repeatedly) in your attempts to refute the usage of blood transfusions also happens to perform the very same procedure...
...and on top of that, I mentioned cross-gender operations, another example of a typical type of practice that religious bodies would generally discre ...[text shortened]...
but over time, I have come to understand that it was in fact Man who created God in his image.
The rest of your caustic diatribe is unworthy of a serious response.
14 May 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieeven if bloodless medicine would be a thing, which i don't agree it is, it only is viable to a certain number of cases where transfusion is not needed.
you are a free moral agent and retain the right to self determination as Jehovahs witnesses do, you want to take blood, its your right.
It seems rather interesting to note that first century Christians would rather face death than offer up incense to an effigy of the roman Emperor and yet many refused to do so. Why do you think that was?
as ...[text shortened]... hospital sooner than those who do.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery
if you need a transfusion because of blood loss, no amount of bloodless voodoo will save you. you don't have enough blood, you get some. it is as simple as that.
and yes, obviously the people not receiving blood transfusion recover faster, because they weren't in a life threatening condition to need blood transfusion.
Originally posted by sonhouseSerious edit upon seeing robbie's latest reply...
Well I guess great minds stink alike🙂
Cheap shots? Caustic diatribe?
I personally would call them facts, and refutations of your arguments.
My intention was not to be bitter towards you. If that's how you perceived it, then what does that say about your conscience?
I completely acknowledge and respect that there are other alternatives to blood transfusions,
mostly, as Zahlanzi stated, there are many cases that simply do not require them.
However, countless cases DO require them, where the patient would die otherwise... the only person showing ignorance here is yourself, as you completely ignore the fact that without blood transfusions many millions worldwide would die on an annual basis.
It's all common sense stuff, really. I just found it interesting that you insisted on using that one hospital from the US to back your 'bloodless' argument.
I guess what is happening here is exactly the same reason why I stopped speaking at public debates on such matters: you guys already have your minds firmly closed, and anything that the opposition says is merely disregarded and labelled as either false or irrelevant.
I once had over a hundred Muslims shun me because I spoke of Apostasy... I speak nothing but facts, backed up by research, and if people do not like to hear them then by all means they can continue to live with their heads firmly in the sand.
What you said was also unworthy of a serious response, but you got one anyway, because I am passionate about my own life, which was granted to me not by God but by blood transfusions.
14 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziOn the contrary there is such a procedure as blood expansion where the lost volume is made up of a solution and measures taken to boost the bodies production of blood cells through naturally occurring hormones such as erythtropoietin. I suggest you educate yourself prior to posting Zippy it makes sense.
even if bloodless medicine would be a thing, which i don't agree it is, it only is viable to a certain number of cases where transfusion is not needed.
if you need a transfusion because of blood loss, no amount of bloodless voodoo will save you. you don't have enough blood, you get some. it is as simple as that.
and yes, obviously the people not ...[text shortened]... recover faster, because they weren't in a life threatening condition to need blood transfusion.