Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Pudding]

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Man A sheds man B's blood.
Man C then will sheds man A's blood because God made man in his own image.
Man D then sheds man C's blood.
Man E then sheds man D's blood.
...etc.

Why God's image so voilence?
No wonder God and many humans would conduct so many immoral act in the old and new testament.
Maybe God should adjust his own image to discard those negative characteristics.

Or it's just a man made religion.

 

[Ingledsva]

Really? The next few verses talk about killing humans,

Gen 9:5-6 (ESVST) 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Doesn't sound like God meant we could each other!

Actually - that kind of proves what they said.

Gen 9:5-6 (ESVST) 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

SO - you obviously can kill and eat everything, - but - animals only require ritual life-blood-draining, - while killing a human requires ritual life-blood for life-blood.

*

 

[Pudding]

I have make some misunderstanding.

Gen 1:29-30 is talking to Adam.
Gen 9:3-4 is talking to Noah.

So the post about God and Eve are food for Adam is build on misunderstanding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Man A sheds man B's blood.
Man C then will sheds man A's blood because God made man in his own image.
Man D then sheds man C's blood.
Man E then sheds man D's blood.
...etc.

Surely any god that is is wise enough to realize the vicious cycle of violence, and that violence begets violence.

 

[Faronator]

Are you serious?

Gen 9:3-4 (ESVST) 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Are you suggesting we can eat humans also?

I think they are just grasping at straws in that argument unfortunately. Humans aren't thought of as animals in Biblical terms (top of the food chain) so I'm not really sure why they threw that out there. I've never heard someone say their favorite animal is the human although some have been known to keep a human or two as pets so to speak ex: Thomas Jefferson

Wait, does that mean one of our presidents practiced beastiality in Monticello? See...that's grasping at straws.

 

[Pudding]

Really? The next few verses talk about killing humans,

Gen 9:5-6 (ESVST) 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Doesn't sound like God meant we could each other!

In old testament he allows many immoral laws and condone many immoral actions. I'll not surprise if he allows another immoral behaviour.

Verse 5 could be interpret into that if a man reckon by God it's alright to sheds other man's blood, he can do so without the consequences of his blood sheds by another man.

Verse 6 can be interpret into that whoever sheds the blood of man without approve by God, by man shall his blood be shed, because God made man in his own image, he'll not tolerate man killing his image without his permission.

Those verses are dangerous, they can be used to justify shedding man's blood.
"God reckon it's allright for me to shed other man's blood, he directly or use sign or his word Bible told me so, i'm not wrong for doing so."
With the voice appear in one's head or sign or with the combination with the immoral laws approve by God present in OT:
- stoning rebellious children
- people who work on sunday will be put to death

Sheds man's blood can be refer to:
- sheds man's blood as killing man without consumes the meat
- or sheds man's blood as killing man then consumes the meat
God haven't made it clear which one he refers to.

 

[Pudding]

Gen 9:4(ESVST) Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.

Human is "moving thing that lives", so God can be saying human is qualify to be food for Noah.
Or every moving thing that lives not including human shall be food for you.
God haven't made it clear which one he refers to.

Gen 9:5(ESVST) And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

With the other condition that if God reckon it's allright for Noah to condone cannibal, then Noah can justify to do so without kill by other man.

How do we know whether or not God reckon it's allright to condone cannibal?
He haven't say can or cannot in the Bible.

 

[Pudding]

The Bible is so horrify.

 

[Deeje]

I am not sure what the first sentence has to do with the rest. It seems to create an implied non-sequitur.

It actually vindicates that our position (because we have refused blood all along and copped a lot of flack because of our stance) is based on the Bible's teachings about the sanctity of blood. Its sacredness was first revealed to Noah, then it was incorporated into Israel's law, and then repeated to Christians.

Acts 15:28, 29:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (NASB)

It was "essential" for all Christians to "abstain" from blood and from unbled meat. We understand that "abstain" means not to take blood into the body by any means.

Findings by medical science are now showing that our position was not so unreasonable after all....and techniques designed to facilitate surgery with little blood loss has benefited many people, not just JW's. Whole hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have now sprung up all over the world.

If you were to say, " technology is developing, such that blood transfusions are going to be replaced with better practices and alternatives, that no longer conflict with JW faith, and now this conflict will become less prevalent.". I don't think you would have gotten the negative replies.

Perhaps, but you will always get those replies from people with closed minds and given an opportunity to shoot the messenger...they will.
It is the medical profession itself that is saying blood is no longer considered the life saving procedure it was once thought to be. It seems as if some people think we invented that story.

If we can find an alternative to blood transfusion, great. But if blood transfusion increases the chance of survival, and you refuse because of religious beliefs, then you either want to die, or are foolish.

As I have indicated, our position on blood has been proven to be reasonable, given the data. There are literally thousands of JW's who have been told that they would die without blood....the vast majority of them lived and recovered well, in spite of the dire predictions. So can you believe a doctor who tells you point blank that you will die, when the record shows that most of them didn't?

We also have to remember that blood is a multi-million dollar a year business. Have you ever Googled the cost of a single unit of blood? There are reasons to perpetuate this practice that are not motivated by saving lives.....its more about lining pockets to the tune of $522-$1183 per unit.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ue-cost-at-522-to-1183-per-unit-89909747.html

 

[Pudding]

The next level of blood loss occurs with the Class 3 hemorrhage, which references loss of 30 to 40 percent of total blood volume. This could be around 3 to 4 pints of blood, for those keeping track. Blood transfusion is usually necessary with a hemorrhage of this magnitude, according to Alton.

“At this point, the heart will be beating very quickly and is straining to get enough oxygen to tissues,” he said. “Blood pressure drops. Smaller blood vessels are constricting to keep the body core circulation going.”

The final classification of hemorrhaging, Class 4, occurs when a person loses over 40 percent of their blood volume. A hemorrhage so severe requires immediate and major resuscitative help, or else the strain on the body’s circulatory system will be too great to survive. The heart will no longer be able to maintain blood pressure and circulation, Alton said, so organs will fail and the patient will slip into a comatose state preceding death.

Source

@Deeje, do you suggest Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage patient to refuse blood transfusion but accept no-blood-transfusion medical care?

 

[Deeje]

Blood is absolutely vital and necessary for carrying oxygen to your organs, and carry some of the waste back to the lungs. You can replace the volume, but what you replace it with will not be able to perform the utmost necessary of functions.

Yes I understand that, but the body's ability to make red cells especially with the aid of substances like EPO, is amazing.Recovery is very rapid without transfusions.
Doctors are finding that even very low hemoglobin levels can be tolerated if the volume is kept up. What little red cells may be available are utilized rather than being compromised as the original video demonstrates.

It can. But if too much blood has been lost, the patient must have more blood or their body cannot and will not function properly. You can use saline solution to help fill the volume, but the body needs x-amount (dependent upon variables such as body weight) of blood in order to function and prevent things such as organ damage.

What is demonstrated is that lower levels can be tolerated if the red cells are not compromised by the use of analogous blood. Our bodies are designed to fight foreign invaders....someone else's blood is foreign tissue and uses the body's resources to fight it. Our immune systems don't like foreign biological tissue. Blood is virtually a liquid organ transplant.

Not if someone has lost too much blood. That is why people can only give so much blood when they donate, because if they go beyond that there is a very real risk and chance of the effects of blood loss.

Does this not make you suspicious of single unit transfusions? If you can lose a pint of blood without damage to the body, how is a pint of blood, which the immune system will fight, going to do anyone any good? I remember some years ago a young intern began studying the Bible with us. He admitted that single unit transfusions were given routinely back then to "pink up" the patient, giving the impression that they were doing well under the doctor's care. I am hoping that this practice does not still exist.


Just as a side note Shadow Wolf, did you know that the pink color you use in your responses messes up the quote function? (or it does on my computer anyway) Just thought I'd mention it in case this was happening to others.

 

[Deeje]

Source

@Deeje, do you suggest Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage patient to refuse blood transfusion but accept no-blood-transfusion medical care?

For JW's there is no blood transfusion option....no matter what stage they have reached. Plasma volume expanders along with EPO administered has seen even medical emergencies overcome without the use of blood.

 

[Pudding]

For JW's there is no blood transfusion option....no matter what stage they have reached. Plasma volume expanders along with EPO administered has seen even medical emergencies overcome without the use of blood.

Do you also suggest Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage non-JW patient to refuse blood transfusion but accept no-blood-transfusion medical care?

 

[idav]

It actually vindicates that our position (because we have refused blood all along and copped a lot of flack because of our stance) is based on the Bible's teachings about the sanctity of blood. Its sacredness was first revealed to Noah, then it was incorporated into Israel's law, and then repeated to Christians.

Acts 15:28, 29:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (NASB)

It was "essential" for all Christians to "abstain" from blood and from unbled meat. We understand that "abstain" means not to take blood into the body by any means.

Findings by medical science are now showing that our position was not so unreasonable after all....and techniques designed to facilitate surgery with little blood loss has benefited many people, not just JW's. Whole hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have now sprung up all over the world.



Perhaps, but you will always get those replies from people with closed minds and given an opportunity to shoot the messenger...they will.
It is the medical profession itself that is saying blood is no longer considered the life saving procedure it was once thought to be. It seems as if some people think we invented that story.



As I have indicated, our position on blood has been proven to be reasonable, given the data. There are literally thousands of JW's who have been told that they would die without blood....the vast majority of them lived and recovered well, in spite of the dire predictions. So can you believe a doctor who tells you point blank that you will die, when the record shows that most of them didn't?

We also have to remember that blood is a multi-million dollar a year business. Have you ever Googled the cost of a single unit of blood? There are reasons to perpetuate this practice that are not motivated by saving lives.....its more about lining pockets to the tune of $522-$1183 per unit.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ue-cost-at-522-to-1183-per-unit-89909747.html

Of course blood is important and will be used as a fountain of youth in the future.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/young-blood-renews-old-mice

 

[Pudding]

@Deeje

What is the survival chance/rate for hemorrhage 3 and 4 patient under the medical treatment with blood transfusion compare to no blood transfusion?

 

[Deeje]

Do you also suggest Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage non-JW patient to refuse blood transfusion but accept no-blood-transfusion medical care?

That is none of our business. The point of this thread is to provide information to those who might be interested. Our position remains the same because it is not based on medical opinion, but on the Bible.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje

What is the survival chance for hemorrhage 3 and 4 patient under the medical treatment with blood transfusion compare to no blood transfusion?

I have no stats on that, only personal experience with close friends. The two I mentioned in a previous post both recovered well and very quickly. Both were told they would die without blood. Neither of them did even though their hemoglobin level was critical.

 

[Pudding]

I have no stats on that, only personal experience with close friends. The two I mentioned in a previous post both recovered well and very quickly. Both were told they would die without blood. Neither of them did even though their hemoglobin level was critical.

What level their hemorrhage are? 1, 2, 3 or 4?
Your critical level is refer to 3 and 4?

 

[Deeje]

Of course blood is important and will be used as a fountain of youth in the future.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/young-blood-renews-old-mice

Do we need young mice?

If this is the case then there will be a lot of old JW's getting around....

 

[Deeje]

What level their hemorrhage are?

Low enough to be told that they would die. Haven't got data.