Exactly!Now that's over the top, even by this thread's standards. Is there ANY procedure or medication that is "always life-saving"? I'd surely like to know what it might be!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Kettle, meet pot...
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
That'll be the day.
Note to "those who really aren't listening": Don't hold your breath.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Try to contain your excitement, darling. I've been following dianaiad's posts to you and finally had to see what all the fuss was about. Bye again.Oh look....I'm not on ignore any more !How wonderful!
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Yes, and no! There are some instances where they have saved lives like if there is some emergency! Often times, they do more harm than good, sometimes they even kill people!
Most people will never need them to save lives! Usually when they are given, it is for some surgery, and often are way overused! I have seen figures that 40 to 60 percent of transfusions given are not needed and 66 percent are administered improperly!
Medicine is carefully given according to proper doses, and usually as needed, very highly regulated! Not so with blood! It is an institutional habit, not well regulated, given for frivolous reasons, and more about the doctor than the patient! Doctor A may give it to the patient because he feels like it, while Dr B may not feel like it, and the same patient wouldn't get one!
There are blood replacements, not a full substitute yet, but lots of options that are superior to blood in many ways! Patients can build up their iron supplies before surgery as well! For those who would tell JWs that they don't care about their or their kid's lives, ask yourself! Do you care about your or your kids lives, when you let a doctor give them for the wrong reasons and don't seek out alternatives when you can? Also do you care about your or your kid's lives when you eat/feed them massive doses of sugar and fat? Or smoke and drink around them? If you can say you are like that, then you can start discussing the matter with me
Oftentimes news reports distort things, when they claim a JW died from refusing blood! In many cases the person who received blood would have died anyway, or if they did receive a transfusion would have lived anyway!
Some of the consequences of transfusions are disease, allergic reactions, even to blood that matches your own, chromosomes not matching, gender differences even affect blood recipients! A nobel prize winning doctor refused transfusions because he said blood was so unique that it was like a finger print, and it is also like an organ transplant! Bodies often reject the organ if not artificially treated! Also blood cannot store oxygen and this is hard on the body
Other risks are heart attacks, heart failure, stroke, rheumatoid arthritis (long term effect), and more! A couple people who got diseases from blood are Arthur Ashe, Paul Michael Glaesar's wife, a former pope, Linda Lovelace (who eventually died from Hepatitis) In Cancer patients, their Cancer is more likely to return
Of course, for JWs the main issue is obeying the creator who said "Abstain from blood" Just because you may interpret that differently than we do, does that mean we have to follow YOUR conscience?
Do you approve of your child going to war and dying for his country? If you say "Yes, I am proud that he would die for our country and conscience" how is it different if we would in a worst case scenario, allow our kids to die for their and/our God and conscience? We believe in a future resurrection!
Even in an emergency, the Bible forbids consuming blood! Some Israelites fell to eating with the blood, some quail, I think! They were too hungry to bleed it first! They were destroyed for this
Before you judge JWs for how they live their lives, learn the facts! Snap judgments are good for very little other than misplaced anger! Of course, this isn't an exact equivalent, but Abraham was going to kill Isaac because God told him to, and do those who profess belief in the Bible object to that!
Israelite soldiers killed babies on the enemy side, not for fun of course, but they were supposed to wipe out the other side! If you believe in the Bible, you accept that! That isn't to say that we "kill" our children but very rarely, they may lose their lives because of this issue! Very rarely! And often times a judge takes it out of hands anyway!
Most people will never need them to save lives! Usually when they are given, it is for some surgery, and often are way overused! I have seen figures that 40 to 60 percent of transfusions given are not needed and 66 percent are administered improperly!
Medicine is carefully given according to proper doses, and usually as needed, very highly regulated! Not so with blood! It is an institutional habit, not well regulated, given for frivolous reasons, and more about the doctor than the patient! Doctor A may give it to the patient because he feels like it, while Dr B may not feel like it, and the same patient wouldn't get one!
There are blood replacements, not a full substitute yet, but lots of options that are superior to blood in many ways! Patients can build up their iron supplies before surgery as well! For those who would tell JWs that they don't care about their or their kid's lives, ask yourself! Do you care about your or your kids lives, when you let a doctor give them for the wrong reasons and don't seek out alternatives when you can? Also do you care about your or your kid's lives when you eat/feed them massive doses of sugar and fat? Or smoke and drink around them? If you can say you are like that, then you can start discussing the matter with me
Oftentimes news reports distort things, when they claim a JW died from refusing blood! In many cases the person who received blood would have died anyway, or if they did receive a transfusion would have lived anyway!
Some of the consequences of transfusions are disease, allergic reactions, even to blood that matches your own, chromosomes not matching, gender differences even affect blood recipients! A nobel prize winning doctor refused transfusions because he said blood was so unique that it was like a finger print, and it is also like an organ transplant! Bodies often reject the organ if not artificially treated! Also blood cannot store oxygen and this is hard on the body
Other risks are heart attacks, heart failure, stroke, rheumatoid arthritis (long term effect), and more! A couple people who got diseases from blood are Arthur Ashe, Paul Michael Glaesar's wife, a former pope, Linda Lovelace (who eventually died from Hepatitis) In Cancer patients, their Cancer is more likely to return
Of course, for JWs the main issue is obeying the creator who said "Abstain from blood" Just because you may interpret that differently than we do, does that mean we have to follow YOUR conscience?
Do you approve of your child going to war and dying for his country? If you say "Yes, I am proud that he would die for our country and conscience" how is it different if we would in a worst case scenario, allow our kids to die for their and/our God and conscience? We believe in a future resurrection!
Even in an emergency, the Bible forbids consuming blood! Some Israelites fell to eating with the blood, some quail, I think! They were too hungry to bleed it first! They were destroyed for this
Before you judge JWs for how they live their lives, learn the facts! Snap judgments are good for very little other than misplaced anger! Of course, this isn't an exact equivalent, but Abraham was going to kill Isaac because God told him to, and do those who profess belief in the Bible object to that!
Israelite soldiers killed babies on the enemy side, not for fun of course, but they were supposed to wipe out the other side! If you believe in the Bible, you accept that! That isn't to say that we "kill" our children but very rarely, they may lose their lives because of this issue! Very rarely! And often times a judge takes it out of hands anyway!
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Okay, watched the video. Doesn't support the claim of JW's that transfusions are some kind of transgression against the wishes of their god. No god is ever mentioned.
Sure, there are risks with the transfusion of blood, as there are risks for all other invasive medical procedures. In each case it is a matter of making an educated evaluation concerning risks versus rewards. If you are going to claim that the basis for JW's refusal of transfusions is now based on the fact that the proceedure carries risks, then you should not ever leave the house, as all things in life contain risks. It is a matter of intelligently weighing the risks, is it not?
The fact that transfusions have caused negative outcomes sometimes is not a blanket endictment of transfusions.
People have drowned while swimming, so should we prohibit everyone from swimming?
However, if a consenting adult wishes to place his or her life in jeapordy to please their invisible friend, I think it is their right to refuse blood, oxygen, or whatever they wish. You cannot legislate against ignorance or lack of critical thinking.
The dividing line is with children. How can you equate the actions of an adult joining the services and risking their own life by their own choice with a small child trusting their parents with their life and assuming they are reasonable? Not the same thing at all.
So, sorry, you have no real case here. You are just blowing smoke.
Jenny Collins
Active Member
People HAVE to leave their houses and there is no command from God not to leave their houses! JWs do not take blood because of the Bible command, and in most cases the use of blood is not needed, therefore they don't need to take the risk!
They are critical thinkers who study the issue much more than most people who criticize them! When people are on the defensive, they make it their business to know the facts! When people are doing the accusing and they have more people on their side, they get lazy! They have more on their side and aren't as invested in doing the homework! They are the ones lacking in critical thinking!
Those falsely convicted of a crime, will go to prison and immerse themselves in law books to prove their innocence! They will enlist help of agencies to help them explore evidence that didn't reach the courts, and for years they will study the issue!
Meanwhile the ones who put them there, may go with false leads and not be nearly as thorough! The police may have done sloppy work, and their opinions may get in the way of their investigation! If they think "the boyfriend" killed the woman, they will have tunnel vision! Then the judge and jury hear what a good lawyer tells them and accept it! And the burden is on the falsely accused and convicted to painstakingly research things that can help their appeal!
That is an illustration to demonstrate that it is same with JWs and blood! You have all of these people who quickly point fingers without knowing the facts! JWs do deep investigation, than the others do a little superficial and try to say the JWs are wrong!
Jenny Collins
Active Member
In the 1980s, there was the spread of AIDS from blood and quite a while after it was known that transfusions were spreading this, it wasn't tested! Also there were blood banks that had were very lax in the handling of blood and they put the public at great risk! There were whistle blowers who exposed this!
I read articles in respected magazines about this and also read a book by Judith Reitman called Bad Blood, it was about the Red Cross!
Did you know that the Red Cross convinced the public that transfusions were much safer than they really were? They made a couple different calculations about the risk of HIV transmission from blood, and came to two figures, one much higher than the other! They selected the lower figure and promoted that! So some person, upon hearing that, would have told JWs how unrisky blood was because "The Red Cross says so"
Years later, I picked up an official brochure somewhere and it said "There is zero risk of contracting HIV from blood" Well just a day or two earlier, the news carried a story of a man who did contract AIDs from blood because of the window period that it couldn't be detected back then!
I showed that brochure to the pharmacist who worked there and he told me "It is clearly wrong" so you see, maybe, just maybe, when you hear claims that the blood supply is so safe now, it is likely not true
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Good grief, I wasn't suggesting everybody stay in their house to avoid life!!! Are you really that shallow a thinker?
My point was that that is where your logic leads. I was exaggerating the situation to make a point about your irrationality. You beat your chest about transfusions and then engage in much more risky behaviors without even a thought.
JW's do not abstain from transfusions because of safety reasons. They do it because of their religious dogma, so this whole exercise is really a waste of time, isn't it?
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
There is actually no command for you not to have a blood transfusion. You folks twist the meaning of the verses. Read the whole text.
It says specifically blood from bird or dumb beast. It is also talking about blood from what has been killed.
Human blood from one live person to another for medical reasons, does not in any way fall under these verses.
I would not be here today if it were not for blood transfusions.
*
Jenny Collins
Active Member
You compare blood transfusions to leaving one's home! Blood transfusions are much more riskier than leaving one's home! I am surprised you didn't know that! As I said, we have to leave our homes, what choice do we have? We could stay in our homes and then maybe a meteor would fall from the sky and kill us! Life is risks, but we don't take unnecessary risks like transfusions, which are mostly unneeded! We don't "beat our chests" a very weird choice of words, and we our reasons for refusing them are religious but no dogma involved! Look that word up! We are obedient to the Bible and that also works out for us, because we avoid risks! Same could be said for avoiding fornication! We avoid that to be obedient to God, and by doing so we also avoid risk of disease, pregnancy, etc
The fact of the matter is that America and many other countries, give citizens religious freedom! Gone are the days where a court could decide what you do with your own body, and gone are the days where people can let their conscience be the deciding factor for how you live your live? You may have your own beliefs, and it wouldn't be my place to try to run your life!
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Jenny Collins
Active Member
It says "Abstain from BLOOD" Does not say that human blood is any different and doesn't say that blood is only to be abstained from if the being is dead or not! Why would it be okay to take blood from something living? Abstain means abstain! By what authority do you say that human blood form transfusions doesn't apply here? I don't know if you would or wouldn't be here today without transfusions, but no one is trying to stop you from getting them! You are free to live by your own conscience as are we
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
First it is for the JEWISH people - not anyone else.
Second - these verses are around the sacrifice - and say the blood and fat are for God. I'm going to guess you eat fat, - bacon anyone?
For instance -
Lev 3:16 And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD'S.
Lev 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
All of the "blood" verses are about the animal sacrifice, - or dietary animal food laws. It is in no way meaning blood transfusions between humans.
"There is nothing in Jewish law that would preclude a person from benefiting from a blood transfusion (or donating blood, for that matter).
Furthermore, according to Jewish belief, saving a life is one of the most important mitzvot (commandments), overriding nearly all of the others. (The exceptions are murder, certain sexual offenses, and idol-worship—we cannot transgress these even to save a life.) Therefore, if a blood transfusion is deemed medically necessary, then it is not only permissible but obligatory.
All the best,
Rochel Chein for Chabad.org" Is blood transfusion permissible in Jewish belief?
"Short form - Orthodox Jews believe that there is a prohibition to consume blood either via eating or drinking. There is no prohibition to accept a blood transfusion.
btw: Orthodox Jews consider it an act of kindness to donate blood. The prohibition of eating is limited to food that enters via the mouth and throat. Any intravenous feeding would also be exempt from regular prohibitions."
So there you go - the idea of no blood transfusions, - is as usual, - Christians grabbing Jewish texts and twisting them into what they do not mean.
*
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Of course they help, it may not be the best solution, but I believe many would have died without it, silly religions such as the JW'S would have us believe differently, this is just pure stupidity.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If that's what you believe, then at least give up all forms of meat because there will always be blood inside the tissues.
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Whoa how! The command to "continue to abstain from blood" is for Christians! The word can be rendered abstain, which does not only mean to eat, and if a doctor was to tell you to not drink alcohol, would you pump it into your veins?
Jenny Collins
Active Member
We are not legalistic about blood! In the Bible the Israelites ate meat that they had drained! There was of course traces of blood left over, but they were free to eat it anyway! We do not directly drink or eat blood but are not so obsessive that we refrain from eating meat! We are reasonable about it! Just as when an apostle plucked a grain of wheat on the Sabbath and ate it, the pharisees said he was working! He just plucked a piece of wheat! We try to not be excessively technical which is legalistic