Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[psychoslice]

Go back and read all I said here, you didn't read it all because you brought up issues I already had addressed! Then you will see that I did prove things, even shared links to media coverage of transfusions

Yea yea, and we come back to where we are now, I simply don't agree with you, period.

 

[psychoslice]

Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”

It is plain as day that Leviticus was talking about eating the blood, nothing to do with blood transfusion.

 

[psychoslice]

If you are going to believe what it says about blood in Leviticus then you must also believe and practice what it says to everything else in Leviticus

Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Leviticus 25:44-45

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

 

[dianaiad]

The government may also decide to tell people that they have to give kids certain vaccinations and maybe the parents don't think they are safe! A lot of times the courts interfere in the kind of care we seek for our kids, when alternatives are available, or the courts go along with the judgment of the doctor! The judge thinks "Who am I to second guess him! He is the doc" So he rubber stamps him and the parents are deprived of any choices

Well now, that's a problem. It's one of the reasons that I have some difficulty with this particular issue. Vaccinations are not JUST about the person getting them, y'know.

When my mother was very young, a 'bum' or 'hobo' (this was in the Depression) was found on a freight train, ill. He was taken to a local hospital where he died within a few days. He had smallpox. My mother's oldest sister and her family caught it, along with about half of the people in the town, and the town mayor attempted to down play the thing and call it 'chickenpox,' while being sneaky about getting as many people vaccinated against smallpox as he could. Unfortunately, my grandmother (Mom's mother) had gone to help her daughter care for her family, and fortunately nobody in that family died. However....Grandmother knew what it was, and it wasn't chickenpox.

When she came home she informed the public health department and the local authorities (and the doctors) and voluntarily put herself and her children in quarantine, along with everybody SHE had contacted after she saw her daughter's family. She had, after all, caught it herself. She made her husband and her children get vaccinated, but a young woman who helped her refused to do so either for herself or her own children because she was afraid of it.

So Grandma and her family all survived, either not getting the disease at all, or getting an extremely mild case. This young woman, however....she and her family all got it, and she and two of her children died. That's one thing...but because she refused to be vaccinated, my grandmother's courageous actions in notifying the authorities didn't do much good for the town...SHE was in quarantine, but this other woman wouldn't do that, and so something like fifteen people in that village of less than 300 died....and a whole bunch of 'em got sick before everybody was vaccinated.

I myself am 'immune compromised,' and if some mother won't get her child vaccinated against the flu or measles or chickenpox or whatever....that CHILD might be fine; after all, most of the diseases that children are vaccinated against are considered 'childhood diseases' and the vast majority of children sail right through them. I did, mostly....

But I'm not immune to any of them any more, (Bone marrow transplants can do that to you) and if some kid who wasn't vaccinated is coming down with the measles and breathes around me, I could die. Really.

Speaking of....recently there was a measles outbreak among children who had gone to Disneyland. Some of those children got very, very ill. I'm not certain, but one may have died...all because one young vacationer had them, but wasn't vaccinated because her mother was nervous about it. The other children who got the measles also had parents who had refused to vaccinate their children because they were afraid. There were a great many sick children and adults as a result of this, and it wasn't fun for anybody. You ARE aware of what measles can do to adults who get it, right?

So you see why I have a slightly different view of this?

 

[dianaiad]

A lot of people abuse their children, that doesn't mean they have the right to do so.

Well....who's to judge what 'abuse' is?

 

[psychoslice]

Well....who's to judge what 'abuse' is?

The law for one.

 

[Deeje]

I'm sure someone will have already pointed this out by now, but I'm going to do it anyway just for my own benefit.

When you look up the actual paper submitted by the International Consensus Conference on Transfusion Outcomes mentioned in the video (something Deeje didn't appear to actually do), here is what the paper actually says:

"An international multidisciplinary panel of 15 experts reviewed 494 published articles and used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine the appropriateness of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion based on its expected impact on outcomes of stable nonbleeding patients in 450 typical inpatient medical, surgical, or trauma scenarios. Panelists rated allogeneic RBC transfusion as appropriate in 53 of the scenarios (11.8%), inappropriate in 267 (59.3%), and uncertain in 130 (28.9%). Red blood cell transfusion was most often rated appropriate (81%) in scenarios featuring patients with hemoglobin (Hb) level 7.9 g/dL or less, associated comorbidities, and age older than 65 years. Red blood cell transfusion was rated inappropriate in all scenarios featuring patients with Hb level 10 g/dL or more and in 71.3% of scenarios featuring patients with Hb level 8 to 9.9 g/dL. Conversely, no scenario with patient's Hb level of 8 g/dL or more was rated as appropriate. Nearly one third of all scenarios were rated uncertain, indicating the need for more research. The observation that allogeneic RBC transfusions were rated as either inappropriate or uncertain in most scenarios in this study supports a more judicious transfusion strategy. In addition, the large number of scenarios in which RBC transfusions were rated as uncertain can serve as a road map to identify areas in need of further investigation."

In short, the paper is not about the EFFICACY of transfusions, but the APPROPRIATENESS of transfusions given in stable, non-bleeding inpatient procedures. In other words, its findings do not reflect on how beneficial blood transfusions are in general, they only reflect on how blood transfusions are used in the case of a particular inpatient situation and whether or not they were appropriate, and concluded that most of the times it was used in such cases were unnecessary. It says nothing whatsoever about how effective blood transfusions are when properly used. Please note the difference in language used in the video, which repeatedly states "inappropriate" transfusion use as "non-beneficial" transfusion use. I cannot find any solid information on the NBA Australia, so I can't really judge if they are some form of sock-puppet organization, or maybe just an organization that doesn't edit its videos verywell. It does seem like a deliberate attempt to manipulate the findings of a study in a way that is very dishonest at best.

SOURCES:

Appropriateness of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion: the international consensus conference on transfusion outcomes. - PubMed - NCBI
Research paper (PDF): Appropriateness of Allogeneic Red Blood Cell Transfusion: The International Consensus Conference on Transfusion Outcomes
http://www.tmreviews.com/article/S0887-7963(11)00009-5/abstract?cc=y=

There are several medical sources that tell us that blood transfusion is not the life saving procedure it was claimed to be.Times are changing and not every doctor keeps up to date with the latest procedures.

What is being ignored are the two words repeated in the video...."Morbidity" meaning something causing severe illness that can lead to death and "mortality" ...meaning the cause of death itself. It was stated by several doctors that blood transfusion causes more "morbidity" and "mortality" than any other medical procedure.

If you wish to undergo such on a doctor's recommendation, then by all means do so. People are free to choose what will or will not be done to their own body. But on that basis, I believe that we should also be able to determine what is best for our children as well. Doctors are not God and this procedure is deemed to be dangerous to health by the very doctors who should know. Many of them now respect our wishes even in the treatment of our children. We are grateful to them for their assistance. Our position is no longer considered to be unreasonable.

On our past track record, many of our brotherhood have been told by doctors that they would die without blood....very few of them did, and when that happened, it made headlines. The truth is, the patient may have died anyway. Do you know how many people die as a direct result of having blood transfusions? Many more than who die without them. This is why bloodless surgery and treatment is becoming widespread in the world. They have seen how well alternative therapies work and how much better patients recover without resorting to blood transfusions.

Please don't forget that blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry......where there is so much profit at stake, do you really trust them to tell you the truth?

FAQs | The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Johns Hopkins

'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine

Should Anyone Be Given a Blood Transfusion?

Advantages of Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery – Penn Medicine

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are several medical sources that tell us that blood transfusion is not the life saving procedure it was claimed to be.Times are changing and not every doctor keeps up to date with the latest procedures.

What is being ignored are the two words repeated in the video...."Morbidity" meaning something causing severe illness that can lead to death and "mortality" ...meaning the cause of death itself. It was stated by several doctors that blood transfusion causes more "morbidity" and "mortality" than any other medical procedure.

If you wish to undergo such on a doctor's recommendation, then by all means do so. People are free to choose what will or will not be done to their own body. But on that basis, I believe that we should also be able to determine what is best for our children as well. Doctors are not God and this procedure is deemed to be dangerous to health by the very doctors who should know. Many of them now respect our wishes even in the treatment of our children. We are grateful to them for their assistance. Our position is no longer considered to be unreasonable.

On our past track record, many of our brotherhood have been told by doctors that they would die without blood....very few of them did, and when that happened, it made headlines. The truth is, the patient may have died anyway. Do you know how many people die as a direct result of having blood transfusions? Many more than who die without them. This is why bloodless surgery and treatment is becoming widespread in the world. They have seen how well alternative therapies work and how much better patients recover without resorting to blood transfusions.

Please don't forget that blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry......where there is so much profit at stake, do you really trust them to tell you the truth?

FAQs | The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Johns Hopkins

'Bloodless' surgery avoids risks of transfusion

How Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Changing Medicine

Should Anyone Be Given a Blood Transfusion?

Advantages of Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery – Penn Medicine

I see a large amount of Gish galloping, but I fail to see any actual response (much less rebuttal) to my post.

Do you or do you not accept that the findings in the video are somewhat misleading? Did you look up the paper before posting the video yourself, or did you just blindly accept the video's presentation of the paper without actually looking into it?

 

[Deeje]

I see a large amount of Gish galloping, but I fail to see any actual response (much less rebuttal) to my post.

It is pointless debating with someone who refuses to see past the end of their nose. Look at the links I provided.

Do you or do you not accept that the findings in the video are somewhat misleading?

You can't for one minute stop and contemplate what the OP video was saying ...and who was saying it?

Did you not see the cytoscope evidence for what happens when saline is administered compared with what happens when whole blood is given? Blood impedes the flow of red cells to the tissues. Saline takes what red cells are left and distributes them. The body's capacity for making new cells is phenomenal, especially with the help of EPO.

Are you aware of something called cell salvage? There are many techniques for eliminating the need for blood. Doctors know that patients recover better without it. Google bloodless medicine and see for yourself.

Did you look up the paper before posting the video yourself, or did you just blindly accept the video's presentation of the paper without actually looking into it?

I have looked into it very thoroughly, as have my brothers who are appointed as advisory committees to hospitals. Doctors defer to their knowledge of the subject because they know that it is our business to make sure that we are up to date on the latest techniques.

You are welcome to your view, but we are letting people know what the real story is, not the outdated stuff that keeps the blood industry profitable.

 

[Ingledsva]

You say that we are a "later religion" No we are the same Christians as first century believers were! But if you claim otherwise, you would have to accept that Protestants and Catholics are "later Christians" too!

I was referring to all Christian religions.

You say the "God of the Bible did not believe in murder of children" You are right and you are wrong!

I didn't say YHVH - "did not" - believe in murder.

The Bible tells us that YHVH personally Murdered children for the supposed sins of adults. Davis's baby, Firstborn of Egypt, the flood, etc.

God did allow children to die at the hands of his believers! In war against other nations, they were told to dash children against stones! Sound harsh! It was war against unbelievers and they had to destroy those nations!-

No they didn't have to commit genocide on people that didn't agree with their religion. Such is murder of the innocent. No real God would want such.

I already brought up Isaac and Abraham! And God allows children to die from Cancer, from accidents, and so on and so forth! The two things in life that are certain are death and taxes! One person dies at 3, another 46, another 60, and Don Rickles just lived to 90!

Your point??? Nothing to do with stories of straight out MURDER by YHVH, and his followers.

If there is a God, do you think this life now is the only future that we have that we have to cling to? Of course, we try to keep living, we want our kids to live, we take care of ourselves? But we have to obey the commands of God! If not, than forget the Bible, and find another religion, or become atheist!

We are at this horrific place in time mainly because of the religions of Abraham, - that want to force everybody under their religions.

*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is pointless debating with someone who refuses to see past the end of their nose. Look at the links I provided.

I agree, which is why I want you to acknowledge the refutation made of your argument BEFORE moving on to other arguments. You're the one demonstrating an inability to see past the end of your nose if you can't just admit that your video was somewhat misleading and, instead of standing your ground and responding to my argument, you just dredge up four or five other arguments and expect me to address them all.

You don't get off that easily. If your argument has merit, defend it. Don't just change the subject as soon as your house of cards comes tumbling down.

You can't for one minute stop and contemplate what the OP video was saying ...and who was saying it?

I watched the full video and actually RESEARCHED it, which is something you apparently failed to do, otherwise you would realize the flaw in its presentation.

Did you not see the cytoscope evidence for what happens when saline is administered compared with what happens when whole blood is given? Blood impedes the flow of red cells to the tissues. Saline takes what red cells are left and distributes them. The body's capacity for making new cells is phenomenal, especially with the help of EPO.

I'm not likely to take anything the video says seriously when it uses dishonesty as a tactic.

Are you aware of something called cell salvage? There are many techniques for eliminating the need for blood. Doctors know that patients recover better without it. Google bloodless medicine and see for yourself.

Once again, deal with the argument you've already made before juming to new ones.

I have looked into it very thoroughly, as have my brothers who are appointed as advisory committees to hospitals. Doctors defer to their knowledge of the subject because they know that it is our business to make sure that we are up to date on the latest techniques.

You are simply lying. You never looked up the paper at all to check its validity. You merely accepted what the video said at face value.

You are welcome to your view, but we are letting people know what the real story is, not the outdated stuff that keeps the blood industry profitable.

You peddled a video containing lies to support your agenda and are refusing to acknowledge this fact. That makes you a complicit liar.

You are done. You obviously won't admit it in this thread, but now you know that you are dishonest, and you'll just have to live with that and try desperately to deny it to yourself.

 

[Jenny Collins]

First of all, why would conditioning make someone count as a human? In the womb, there are some thoughts in their head, even if we don't know what they are! They are not sophisticated thoughts, but the baby recognizes its mother's voice, it likes the soothing sound of classical music, it sucks its thumb for comfort, it senses the mother's stress, it feels pain! When it is born, it has not yet developed an ego, but you would not kill a 1 day old child!

 

[Jenny Collins]

That is true to a certain degree, but some belly buttons are dirty and need cleaning lol.

True

 

[Jenny Collins]

What I think that people need to consider is that at a certain age, a child can think for themselves! I already pointed out that at the age of 11I began believing as I do now, and I had to battle my mother's screaming at me for years over my beliefs! Doesn't that show that a child after a certain age can think for themselves? Somebody as young as 12 can potentially go to prison for life, if they kill someone! Even though teens are considered inexperienced and vulnerable, they have reached reasoning age, and some of those youth don't want a transfusion!

 

[Jenny Collins]

I don't believe a child is a child until it is born, it then becomes conditioned and programmed by it parents and society, this is when it starts to build its ego, or its personality, before all this the child is a clean slate, if I take away from you all that you have been conditioned who then are you ?.

You don't believe life starts until they become conditioned? What about some 40 year old jerk who is conditioned to be an awful person? We wouldn't kill him! Why kill an unborn child because it hasn't developed a personality yet? Some people's personalities are awful

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I think that people need to consider is that at a certain age, a child can think for themselves! I already pointed out that at the age of 11I began believing as I do now, and I had to battle my mother's screaming at me for years over my beliefs! Doesn't that show that a child after a certain age can think for themselves? Somebody as young as 12 can potentially go to prison for life, if they kill someone! Even though teens are considered inexperienced and vulnerable, they have reached reasoning age, and some of those youth don't want a transfusion!

Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?

 

[Jenny Collins]

We don't

If you are going to believe what it says about blood in Leviticus then you must also believe and practice what it says to everything else in Leviticus

Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Leviticus 25:44-45

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

abstain from blood because it is forbidden in Leviticus! Have you been following what I have been saying here? We follow Acts which restates that Christians are not supposed to take blood either

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't believe life starts until they become conditioned?

No, they said "I don't believe a child is a child until it is born".

What about some 40 year old jerk who is conditioned to be an awful person? We wouldn't kill him! Why kill an unborn child because it hasn't developed a personality yet? Some people's personalities are awful

You can't kill something that isn't yet alive.

 

[Ingledsva]

No they don't have the right to abuse their kids! What does that have to do with not giving their kids transfusions! Most transfusions are not needed! Even when a doctor may claim they are, they may not help and may harm!

And not giving them may be harmful. Most science and doctors fall on the side of giving transfusions. Do they give too many? Probably. But that isn't the point of these debates.

And if life is indeed at risk, if the kid dies, if God says you can't do something, you can't do it!

Again. NO! I would never allow my child to die without trying blood transfusions, etc. Nor do I believe a God would want such, or make such laws.

Do you believe in the Bible? It says: "Abstain from blood"

As shown - NO IT DOESN'T! It is related to Sacrificial and Dietary Laws, and probably pagan practices.

Even if a child's life is on the line, you have to do what God tells you! He gave the life in the first place, and Abraham was going to go as far as to sacrifice Isaac to be obedient! God himself, let his own son be sacrificed! Remember Jesus giving up his life?

As I said - a REAL God would not want children murdered/sacrificed.

Isaac was not sacrificed, - an animal was substituted. It is a teaching story about the change from Sacrifice of the Firstborn, - to a replacement animal sacrifice.

Jesus claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah. The Messiah was not supposed to die. Jesus died. After his death the followers added the he'll be back, to finish the prophecies, propaganda, to his story.

But even so, JWs do not "sacrifice" their kids, they just do not choose transfusions for them! There are very few JW kids who die from not having transfusions! Even if a doctor says the kid died for that reason, maybe the kid would have died anyway, or maybe the doctor made a mistake! It is very hard to say how the outcome would have turned out with or without a transfusion in some cases! Courts step in and sometimes take away the parent's rights to refuse, in which case you can't say the parent did anything wrong, as they were robbed of a choice! If they were given the right and refused the kid blood, then they did what was within their legal rights! And kids often do NOT want the transfusion! If I was given one as a child, I would have been pretty angry!

When adults make medical decisions AGAINST what the majority of the Medical/scientific world consider the best chance at recovery/survival, then the authorities should step in allowing the medical help, - and protecting the CHILD's rights to life, - over the parent's religious ideas, - until the child comes of age and can make the decision for himself.

*

 

[psychoslice]

You don't believe life starts until they become conditioned? What about some 40 year old jerk who is conditioned to be an awful person? We wouldn't kill him! Why kill an unborn child because it hasn't developed a personality yet? Some people's personalities are awful

Yes they are, but that is life, some are jerks some are not, and so with the unborn baby, he or she will be either a jerk or a good human being.