Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Jenny Collins]

"Can cancer be cured?

• Published on February 2, 2016

• 
  

• 0

• 0

• 0

Milu Ramalho
Parceira de Investidor do Sector Imobiliário!


Can cancer be cured?

I went to this article in Linkd and it had the JW article with it, and I had edited out the rest to same space

 

[Jenny Collins]

Ah...I have a problem with deciding that 'because it's the law,' it is therefore moral and decided. Laws have been passed that are absolutely wrong, and have later been altered or removed because people who knew that held their ground. Laws are not physical laws of nature, after all, so anybody who counters an argument with 'because it's the law,' is begging the question...is that law appropriate and just? Should it BE a law?

Remember Rosa Parks?

My problem with this is that I am really torn over this issue.

I THINK, however, that the situations need to be decided individually, and according to slightly different criteria than whether we think the beliefs behind the actions are silly.

For instance, in the case of a JW family who wants to withold blood products from a child...if the choice is 'blood transfusion or die," rather than 'there are alternatives to blood available and they might work but we think blood is better," then blood transfusion it should be. That is, if the child isn't old enough to understand the problem or know what's going on. However, as has been pointed out, that doesn't happen much any more because of available alternatives. It does happen, and when it does, I hope that the parents and their religion...and their version of the God they believe in...doesn't blame the CHILD for it.

I've also written about this problem with people who don't vaccinate their children. Perhaps I'm a wee bit selfish about that one, though.

I do think that laws that target religious beliefs are a problem, though, if those religious beliefs do not cause actual harm to those who don't volunteer freely, with mature consent, and lives are not lost.

"If the choice is blood transfusion or die" A lot of times the child doesn't die, it is just that the doctor decided the kid should get the transfusion! If it were another doctor they might not! The fact of the matter is, that Mormons believe the Bible too, and the Bible that you hold dear says "Abstain from blood" Who do you think should be in charge? Human authorities or God? JW beliefs are not "silly", your own religion gets people accusing it of silliness, so why you would think Acts 15 to abstain from blood could be construed as silly, I don't understand!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Look carefully at your on words. I never exaggerated - you used emotional manipulation and emotional blackmail to try and persuade people. Look right here, particularly the parts I have emphasized in bold:

"One thing I really think you should consider: If you have to get surgery soon, and when you go there you are told that the doctor is going to give you blood, will you be so intent on being right, that you go along with it, even though we have shown you the risks, and that they are usually more harmful than good? Will pride make you risk your health? And if you do have a reaction to the blood, will you still feel this strongly? I know your step dad mistreated women, and said that his brother had brain damage, which you don't even know is exactly how it happened, but will that make you put your own health at risk because of feelings left over from how he treated you and your mom?"

If you don't understand how that is emotionally manipulative, empty rhetoric, then I really don't know what you think it is. I also find it ironic that you accuse people who accept transfusions as "risking their health" for their "pride", when bloodless surgery carries health risks as well - and in many case carries GREATER risks.


What? Since when do you have to be an authority in order to have an opinion? It IS deplorable to bring up the domestic abuse a person suffered in order to manipulate them into accepting your point of view.


Obviously. And do you apply this same logic to your position on transfusions? After all, it's just what YOU think.

You asked me to share sources with you to back up what I said! I told you that I wouldn't because you were battling me the whole time, not listening to anything I said, but I decided to be generous and share sources anyway! Then you find fault that I cut and paste them, then you say: "I could type in evidence for big foot and stuff would come up" That is why I said I wouldn't share any sources, because of your attitude! When I share links to sites like John Hopkins and valid sites, it is not like typing in "Big Foot" and pulling up stuff that says Big Foot is true, and I think you know that

 

[Jenny Collins]

The Guardian - Back to home

• home
• › science

• home
• US
• politics
• world
• opinion
• sports
• soccer
• tech
• arts
• lifestyle
• fashion
• business
• travel
• environment

all sections

Medical research
Many blood transfusions may increase risks, doctors warn
· UK study found dangers for heart surgery patients
· Fears over death rate and storage lead to US inquiry

• 
  
• 
  

This article is 8 years old
Shares
4

Ian Sample, science correspondent


@iansample

Wednesday 23 April 2008 19.08 EDT First published on Wednesday 23 April 2008 19.08 EDT

More than half of blood transfusions may do more harm than good, with some patients facing a six-fold greater risk of dying following surgery because of transfusions, doctors warn today.

Fears over the safety of blood transfusions have prompted some physicians to recommend they are used only as a last resort, with hospitals urged to be more selective over which patients receive blood. According to a report in New Scientist today, the National Institutes of Health, the US government's largest medical funder, has launched a review into the safety of the procedure. Bruce Spiess, a cardiac anaesthetist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, America, told the magazine: "Probably 40%-60% of blood transfusions are not good for the patients."

While the risks of contracting life-threatening infections, such as HIV, from blood transfusions are well understood, doctors believe the danger posed by the blood itself is more serious.

The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Although they do not fully understand why blood transfusions are linked to higher death rates, they suspect that ageing blood that has been stored before being given to patients is less able to carry oxygen to vital organs and causes damage to the immune system.

Blood transfusions became a common procedure during the two world wars, when they were used to save critically-injured soldiers. They are now used routinely in heart surgery, hip replacement operations and cancer treatment. According to the National Blood Service, only 8% of donated blood is used in accident and emergency situations.

According to New Scientist, a recent flurry of studies highlighting the risks of blood transfusions has prompted the wide-ranging safety review. One study of almost 9,000 patients, led by cardiac surgeon Gavin Murphy at the Bristol Heart Institute, found that patients who had heart surgery between 1996 and 2003 were three times more likely to die a year after their operation if they had a blood transfusion. In the month after surgery they were six times more likely to die than patients who did not receive donated blood.

"There is virtually no high-quality study in surgery, or intensive care or acute care, outside of when you are bleeding to death, that shows that blood transfusion is beneficial, and many that show it is bad for you," he said. There are more than 30,000 cardiac operations in Britain each year, with around half involving blood transfusions.

The American review will attempt to find out why blood transfusions appear to be so harmful to many patients.

One theory is that chemicals in donated blood suppress the patient's immune system, making it harder to fight off infections. But doctors also know that within hours of being collected red blood cells stiffen up, making them less able to squeeze down narrow blood vessels and supply oxygen to vital organs.

A study published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients who received blood that was more than two weeks old were almost 70% more likely to die within a year than patients who received fresher blood.

John Wallwork, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Papworth hospital in Cambridge, said: "We are concerned about blood transfusions for a variety of reasons. We don't want to use blood unless we have to. In heart surgery around half receive blood transfusions, but often they are patients who are sicker or bleed significantly during the operation. It's always a case of balancing the risks."

 

[dianaiad]

"If the choice is blood transfusion or die" A lot of times the child doesn't die, it is just that the doctor decided the kid should get the transfusion! If it were another doctor they might not! The fact of the matter is, that Mormons believe the Bible too, and the Bible that you hold dear says "Abstain from blood" Who do you think should be in charge? Human authorities or God? JW beliefs are not "silly", your own religion gets people accusing it of silliness, so why you would think Acts 15 to abstain from blood could be construed as silly, I don't understand!

Jenny, you need to read my post more carefully. When I wrote 'get a transfusion or die,' I meant that. I also included that differences of opinion regarding blood or alternative methods that might work as well are NOT 'get a tranfusion or die." You might not agree with me, but I do know that 'get a transfusion or die' events do indeed happen. Perhaps not as frequently as your opponents think, but they happen more often than YOU think, as well.

My biggest problem is that while I believe that you have every right in the world to practice your religion as you choose, and to accept or reject medical attention as you choose, you do not have the right to prove your faith by putting your child at risk in extreme and obvious situations like 'transfusion or die." Not 'transfusion because I said so,' but quite literally 'transfusion or die.'

I also understand that as a Mormon, this is probably not a problem I will ever face. True, society was not very approving of polygamy, but polygamy was all about adults in consensual relationships, didn't involve anybody who wasn't freely willing to participate, and didn't affect anybody but Mormons.

So perhaps I sorta understand your position but not really.

I do wish, though, that you had actually read what I wrote and not decided that I had really written something else.

 

[Jenny Collins]

9

Jenny, you need to read my post more carefully. When I wrote 'get a transfusion or die,' I meant that. I also included that differences of opinion regarding blood or alternative methods that might work as well are NOT 'get a tranfusion or die." You might not agree with me, but I do know that 'get a transfusion or die' events do indeed happen. Perhaps not as frequently as your opponents think, but they happen more often than YOU think, as well.

My biggest problem is that while I believe that you have every right in the world to practice your religion as you choose, and to accept or reject medical attention as you choose, you do not have the right to prove your faith by putting your child at risk in extreme and obvious situations like 'transfusion or die." Not 'transfusion because I said so,' but quite literally 'transfusion or die.'

I also understand that as a Mormon, this is probably not a problem I will ever face. True, society was not very approving of polygamy, but polygamy was all about adults in consensual relationships, didn't involve anybody who wasn't freely willing to participate, and didn't affect anybody but Mormons.

So perhaps I sorta understand your position but not really.

I do wish, though, that you had actually read what I wrote and not decided that I had really written something else.

If transfusions are wrong in God's eyes, they are wrong for our children too! Although I have found most Mormons nice, I do not think that you have the right to judge JWs for their decisions based on their interpretations! Do you know how hard it is for me to comprehend that you wear some ceremonial underwear of sorts! I didn't know what to call it, I won't make fun and call it magic underwear because I am not like the others who razz you! And you think you will become Gods of your own planet and Indians being a lost tribe of Jews or something like that! I am not making fun, I am just pointing out that to me all of that does not make sense! If a belief of yours made it a life or death choice for your child, you would have to follow God, correct?

So if you would agree that you have to do as God says, even if one's child is at risk, then it all boils down to the reason! Is the reason silly or not! Interpreting Acts 15 to mean that you can't take in blood, is no more silly than your beliefs!

I think it was a JW who put this post out, and I truly wonder why they would, although a few people have been educated here and conceded

 

[Jenny Collins]

Jenny, you need to read my post more carefully. When I wrote 'get a transfusion or die,' I meant that. I also included that differences of opinion regarding blood or alternative methods that might work as well are NOT 'get a tranfusion or die." You might not agree with me, but I do know that 'get a transfusion or die' events do indeed happen. Perhaps not as frequently as your opponents think, but they happen more often than YOU think, as well.

My biggest problem is that while I believe that you have every right in the world to practice your religion as you choose, and to accept or reject medical attention as you choose, you do not have the right to prove your faith by putting your child at risk in extreme and obvious situations like 'transfusion or die." Not 'transfusion because I said so,' but quite literally 'transfusion or die.'

I also understand that as a Mormon, this is probably not a problem I will ever face. True, society was not very approving of polygamy, but polygamy was all about adults in consensual relationships, didn't involve anybody who wasn't freely willing to participate, and didn't affect anybody but Mormons.

So perhaps I sorta understand your position but not really.

I do wish, though, that you had actually read what I wrote and not decided that I had really written something else.

Abraham was told by God to sacrifice Isaac and he was going to obey! Israelite soldiers were told to "dash" babies on rocks! They obeyed! That is what your and my Bible teaches! Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were 3 youths who were willing to die for beliefs

The point being that if it is for a right principle, one must do what God requires

So it comes down to, is it for a good reason and is it really a teaching of God! Our reasons don't seem real to you! You don't see things through our eyes, so you fault our choices! Yet your belief that you will be God of your own planet someday, does not seem real to me!

I like to drink coffee, and it has health benefits! You think it is wrong, and I cannot understand that! It is beside the point if that is potentially harmful for your child or not! It is still your conscience dictating how you live your life, and I don't see anything wrong with coffee, or a little alcohol, or whatever

 

[Ingledsva]

"Most Christians say you are wrong" So majority MUST be right? You keep thinking that other people believing differently than I do, means that I think they are right? You don't even believe in Christianity, so why are you favoring the view of the other "Christians"? And why would other "Christians" know more about the Bible than JWs, when the pew report says we are the most Biblically well read group within Christianity? You are saying that those who know less, know more!

I am saying that the majority consensus sides with the majority scientific conclusion, not yours.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction! Of course, you don't know who I am either! I am who I claim, but caution is always in order! I have no reason to doubt you, but there are a lot of stories about people who have been saved by transfusions online, and I don't think all of it is true! There are ex members who make stuff up about us so I always have healthy caution! Don't take that the wrong way, I am not accusing!

I told the people here months back, - "before your posts," - about my medical emergency medevac - and that this was the reason I hadn't posted for months. I was in surgery and then recovery. You can go to my page and read one of my replies concerning such. Check the date.

However - what does this have to do with our debate? - other then the FACT that I am alive ONLY because of blood transfusions?

The majority in science, medical fields, etc., don't agree with you. That is just the way it is.

*

 

[oldbadger]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. For those who believe that blood transfusions are the life saving procedure that they are claimed to be, please watch this video so that the facts can be brought to the public's attention. This is information provided by the Australian Government, not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

For Media | National Blood Authority

Deeje, you know that I respect JWs for their honesty and integrity.
I think that the JW 'decision' in 1945 to 'squeeze a new meaning' out of the bible about blood-transfusions was a bad decision which has damaged the JW name; and it could have expanded more quickly but for this wrong turn.
The fact that the JWs have felt the need to 'revise' their interpretation since 1945 is clear evidence that they got it wrong back then, and ever since.
To 'wring' interpretations from the bible is against the wishes of the Apostles and your God, because in 1Col {4:6} you are clearly guided about this kind of wrong action:-....................I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that which is written................
Oh, Deeje.......... don't tell me what 1 Col 4:6 'really means'...! It means what it says...
And here are your verses, which simply instruct against eating blood or bloody meat.

Genesis 9:4, {9:4} Butflesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Leviticus 17:10, {17:10} And whatsoever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that
eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Acts 15:28,29, {} That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, ....

By all means make good choices in your lives, but it's a bad idea to 'conjure' ideas from simple words, a worse idea to estrange folks who decide against, and a disaster for the speedier expansion of your faith.

Peace.
O-B.

 

[psychoslice]

Lets face it, if this was such a big deal to God, then wouldn't he have the intelligence to explain himself better ?.

 

[Deeje]

I think that the JW 'decision' in 1945 to 'squeeze a new meaning' out of the bible about blood-transfusions was a bad decision which has damaged the JW name; and it could have expanded more quickly but for this wrong turn.

You do understand that we have no interest in 'expanding our numbers' to more than God chooses to invite. (John 6:44)
There are over 8 million of us who are very happy that this is the case.
It was a good decision we made back in 1945, regardless of what the medical profession or anyone else thought about it.
If you watch the video in the OP, you will see why we were vindicated and why doctors now warn against unnecessary transfusions. We have proven that blood transfusions are unnecessary.

The fact that the JWs have felt the need to 'revise' their interpretation since 1945 is clear evidence that they got it wrong back then, and ever since.

I'm not sure what revision you mean, but as you know we are a progressive organization who are moved to change what we do or believe once new light is shed on the subject. (Proverbs 4:18) We continually investigate the scriptures to make sure that what we believe is scriptural.

Once blood fractions were introduced, we were no longer talking about whole blood transfusions. But a decision had to be made about it. We were given the relevant scriptures dealing with the blood issue, as well as medical information regarding blood fractions and asked to pray about our decision. It was a conscience decision for every Witness, and one that we all took seriously. The way I decided for myself what to do about blood fractions was to ask how a pregnant mother's body dealt with those fractions. I personally came to understand that a mother's bloodstream and her unborn child's were not shared. In fact a baby can have a completely different blood group to its mother. Some small fractions, however, crossed the umbilical chord from mother to child. These are the fractions that I would have no conscience issues with. Whole blood or any of the 4 major components do not cross over from mother to child, so I would reject them. In this way, I believe that Jehovah himself showed me the way. That is how my conscience worked and I am not the judge of another's conscience.

To 'wring' interpretations from the bible is against the wishes of the Apostles and your God, because in 1Col {4:6} you are clearly guided about this kind of wrong action:-....................I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that which is written................
Oh, Deeje.......... don't tell me what 1 Col 4:6 'really means'...! It means what it says...
And here are your verses, which simply instruct against eating blood or bloody meat.

OB, when a person cannot eat by mouth, intravenous feeding is often implemented. We see no difference in consuming blood by mouth or intravenously. If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, would it be OK to hook yourself up to an alcohol drip? What does "abstain" mean? (Acts 15:28-29)

For something to be stated and restated all through the history of God's people, we believe that it has to be one of the most important issues with God. We have not gone beyond what is written at all, and the findings of the medical profession itself should be enough to help people see what the video is saying.....that almost 60% of all transfusions are not deemed to be beneficial....nearly 30% were questionable and only 12% were considered beneficial. Imagine the risks that almost 90% of transfusion recipients were exposed to for no good reason.

The cytoscan results were proof positive that transfused blood does the opposite of what doctors think it does. It impedes blood flow.....it does not enhance it. Ordinary saline did a better job. If you haven't watched the video, I urge you to do so. People need to know about these things. The alternatives are there for everyone.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First of all, you are wrong! There was an article about Cancer online and it was not in our magazine, but it took our article to support that transfusions are bad! I edited out the stuff about Cancer to make this short enough to post!

So, in other words, I was right and you just copy-pasted an entire article from a JW site.

And further, what difference does it make if it came from our publication? It still quotes reliable sources! And I have included enough that didn't come from us here, further instead of trying to discredit it because we did the article, you could always check out the facts!

Earlier you said you had non-JW sources that supported your argument. This obviously isn't one of them. Furthermore, it's not even a contemporary source - the article is a verbatim reprint of an article published in the Watchtower in 1994 and its claims are mostly outdated. Furtherfurthermore, I posted a link to a site that does a point-by-point debunking of the entire article. Furtherfurtherfurthermore, copying and pasting entire pages of text from websites and not at least giving a source is against forum rules on spam (as far as I am aware) and isn't a very good way of demonstrating that you actually have done the research yourself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't know how to provide links, I am not good with computers and you demanded sources from me!

Okay then, all you have to do is copy and paste the website address from the address bar. It's also helpful if you give something of a summary in your own words as well. Of course, none of this is strictly REQUIRED by forum rules - you can just paste the address and say "Go read it", but it's not realy considered good form in reasonable debate.

Seems if I provide them, you shouldn't be making an issues about rules, and how I post them! I thought you wanted to see them

I wanted to see your sources. I didn't want you to copy and paste entire pages of text and then NOT say where they are coming from. Imagine if you'd asked me for a list of JWs who had died because of refusing blood transfusions, and I just copy-pasted a huge list of names with no further information and didn't provide any information as to where I got the names from. Would you think this was reliable information?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First of all, it is impossible to calculate the deaths from transfusions! Simply impossible! But even so, death is not the only harmful effect and also the deaths of JWs is low percent too

I've already given you a link to the death statistics. It's clearly not impossible to calculate. And the deaths of JWs may be low, but the fact that many of them were easily preventable - and the fact that, overall, JWs have a higher death rate as a result of refusing transfusions, is a significant factor. As far as "other harmful effects", infection rates are far lower than mortality rates in modern transfusion procedure.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You asked me to share sources with you to back up what I said! I told you that I wouldn't because you were battling me the whole time, not listening to anything I said, but I decided to be generous and share sources anyway!

And I should thank you for that.

Then you find fault that I cut and paste them, then you say: "I could type in evidence for big foot and stuff would come up"

That was in direct response to you telling me I could find the evidence for your argument by searching for it myself. The point is that you can find anything to justify any opinion online, but actual facts are harder to come by. And when someone makes an argument, I presume they do so as a result of specific facts and research they have found. If you cannot provide said facts and research, I have no reason to believe your claim any more than any claim about bigfoot. That's the point. I'm not equating all online sources of information as being unreliable - I'm saying that without the sources you have used I have no way of deducing the reliability of your information. Do you understand?

That is why I said I wouldn't share any sources, because of your attitude! When I share links to sites like John Hopkins and valid sites, it is not like typing in "Big Foot" and pulling up stuff that says Big Foot is true, and I think you know that

But I had no way of knowing that earlier, because you refused to provide them and simply told me to go find them myself. That is not a mature, intelligent way to debate. The onus is always on the person making the claim to support their argument using the information which lead them to make their claim. I can't simply "decide" that all your information must come from whatever site pops up when I type something into Google. It could be that your sources are legitimate. The point is that I can't make that assumption until I have actually SEEN them. I don't think this is unreasonable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Guardian - Back to home

• home
• › science

• home
• US
• politics
• world
• opinion
• sports
• soccer
• tech
• arts
• lifestyle
• fashion
• business
• travel
• environment

all sections

Medical research
Many blood transfusions may increase risks, doctors warn
· UK study found dangers for heart surgery patients
· Fears over death rate and storage lead to US inquiry

• 
  

This article is 8 years old
Shares
4

Ian Sample, science correspondent


@iansample

Wednesday 23 April 2008 19.08 EDT First published on Wednesday 23 April 2008 19.08 EDT

More than half of blood transfusions may do more harm than good, with some patients facing a six-fold greater risk of dying following surgery because of transfusions, doctors warn today.

Fears over the safety of blood transfusions have prompted some physicians to recommend they are used only as a last resort, with hospitals urged to be more selective over which patients receive blood. According to a report in New Scientist today, the National Institutes of Health, the US government's largest medical funder, has launched a review into the safety of the procedure. Bruce Spiess, a cardiac anaesthetist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, America, told the magazine: "Probably 40%-60% of blood transfusions are not good for the patients."

While the risks of contracting life-threatening infections, such as HIV, from blood transfusions are well understood, doctors believe the danger posed by the blood itself is more serious.

The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Although they do not fully understand why blood transfusions are linked to higher death rates, they suspect that ageing blood that has been stored before being given to patients is less able to carry oxygen to vital organs and causes damage to the immune system.

Blood transfusions became a common procedure during the two world wars, when they were used to save critically-injured soldiers. They are now used routinely in heart surgery, hip replacement operations and cancer treatment. According to the National Blood Service, only 8% of donated blood is used in accident and emergency situations.

According to New Scientist, a recent flurry of studies highlighting the risks of blood transfusions has prompted the wide-ranging safety review. One study of almost 9,000 patients, led by cardiac surgeon Gavin Murphy at the Bristol Heart Institute, found that patients who had heart surgery between 1996 and 2003 were three times more likely to die a year after their operation if they had a blood transfusion. In the month after surgery they were six times more likely to die than patients who did not receive donated blood.

"There is virtually no high-quality study in surgery, or intensive care or acute care, outside of when you are bleeding to death, that shows that blood transfusion is beneficial, and many that show it is bad for you," he said. There are more than 30,000 cardiac operations in Britain each year, with around half involving blood transfusions.

The American review will attempt to find out why blood transfusions appear to be so harmful to many patients.

One theory is that chemicals in donated blood suppress the patient's immune system, making it harder to fight off infections. But doctors also know that within hours of being collected red blood cells stiffen up, making them less able to squeeze down narrow blood vessels and supply oxygen to vital organs.

A study published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients who received blood that was more than two weeks old were almost 70% more likely to die within a year than patients who received fresher blood.

John Wallwork, professor of cardiothoracic surgery at Papworth hospital in Cambridge, said: "We are concerned about blood transfusions for a variety of reasons. We don't want to use blood unless we have to. In heart surgery around half receive blood transfusions, but often they are patients who are sicker or bleed significantly during the operation. It's always a case of balancing the risks."

Once again, this is another article stating the OVERUSE of transfusions, not the efficacy or dangers of transfusions that are PROPERLY USED. You need to read more carefully.

 

[metis]

No metis, because I am not Jewish.

Then you are not bound by any of the Jewish laws, so why do you then pick and choose the Jewish laws you wish to follow while at the same time blaming others for not following the Jewish laws you choose to observe?

 

[dianaiad]

9

If transfusions are wrong in God's eyes, they are wrong for our children too! Although I have found most Mormons nice, I do not think that you have the right to judge JWs for their decisions based on their interpretations! Do you know how hard it is for me to comprehend that you wear some ceremonial underwear of sorts! I didn't know what to call it, I won't make fun and call it magic underwear because I am not like the others who razz you!

You just..er.. did.

And you think you will become Gods of your own planet and Indians being a lost tribe of Jews or something like that! I am not making fun, I am just pointing out that to me all of that does not make sense! If a belief of yours made it a life or death choice for your child, you would have to follow God, correct?

Jenny, I just wrote that this isn't something I will have to face, probably, at least on the medical front. Indeed, I can't think of a single belief we have that would force us to prove our faith by putting only our children at risk, as risible as you might think them.

So if you would agree that you have to do as God says, even if one's child is at risk, then it all boils down to the reason! Is the reason silly or not! Interpreting Acts 15 to mean that you can't take in blood, is no more silly than your beliefs!

My beliefs may well be very silly to those who don't agree with them, this is true; however nothing you have written about my beliefs, whether accurate or not, will kill anybody...much less my children. Unless, of course, someone who thinks my beliefs are silly go from exclamation points to violence. However, if that happens (as it has) the fault is on them, not me.

I think it was a JW who put this post out, and I truly wonder why they would, although a few people have been educated here and conceded

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying in this sentence.

Jenny, are you against abortion? Really....are you? If you support it and the rights of the woman being overwhelmingly more important than the life of the unborn, then never mind. This is simply an extension of that attitude.

However, if you are against it, then consider: does YOUR right to live your religion supersede someone ELSE'S life, even the life of your child?

I don't think it does. However, in case I was not clear enough, here is my position on this, made as clearly as I can.

If there is a possibility that something OTHER than a blood transfusion is available and would do the job, why then....you are the parent and it is your right. However, if the ONLY thing that will save your child's life is a blood transfusion, and that blood transfusion WILL save that life, then those who are taking care of him would be committing murder if they allowed him to die because YOUR religious beliefs said no. Do your religious beliefs trump theirs? Does your belief that God doesn't want you to 'take in blood' mean more than their belief that murder is a bad thing?

Consider: in 120 days or sooner, all traces of that blood transfusion will be gone. If you allow your child to die, he'll still be dead in 120 days. I'm not certain, so I'm asking in all seriousness here; if the decision is taken out of your hands and your child is saved by a blood transfusion you did not want, will you blame/ostracize/shun the child? Is HE now tainted beyond saving? If so, I can understand why you would be upset: either way, you lose him. Could he repent of something he had no say in, and return to the fold? I'm asking these questions because I honestly do not know, but also to make a point.

Finally...

I do not blame, or criticize, those parents who hold to their beliefs even in the face of laws which will force them to stand by and watch someone else save their children's lives. Well, I don't understand it, completely, but I can't blame them. However, I also do not blame the law or the doctors who will not stand by and allow a child to die when they can save him with a transfusion.

...and as the recipient of blood products at a time when the choice was indeed 'do it or die,' I do understand that such events happen. I'm glad that science is finding alternatives. I'm all for better alternatives and their use. However, I have considerably more sympathy for the doctor who refuses to be forced to commit murder to assuage the religious beliefs of someone else, and for the child whose life is at stake. Save that life and let him repent later. it is, after all, not his fault.

 

[dianaiad]

Abraham was told by God to sacrifice Isaac and he was going to obey!

Yes, but you will notice that he did not, after all, have to do that.

Israelite soldiers were told to "dash" babies on rocks! They obeyed!

Jenny, I'm a Mormon. That means that I can in all honesty and with all respect for the bible as scripture, say 'the winners write the history."

That is what your and my Bible teaches! Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were 3 youths who were willing to die for beliefs

Yes. THEY were willing to die for their beliefs. Please note that they didn't throw OTHER youths into the fire, but stepped in themselves. You refuse transfusions for yourself; that is absolutely your right.

The point being that if it is for a right principle, one must do what God requires

Yes....and if the doctor believes that God requires him to save the life of a child? Do your beliefs (which would, in the very rare occasions we are speaking about here, kill him) trump his that he should not murder? Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifist, yes? They will not fight or join the military in any capacity? How does that square with your willingness to allow someone else to die because you impose your beliefs upon him?

BTW, I honor true pacifists and have absolutely no problems with your stance on this. If you had ever read the Book of Mormon you would know why that is, but again, that's an entirely different conversation.

So it comes down to, is it for a good reason and is it really a teaching of God! Our reasons don't seem real to you! You don't see things through our eyes, so you fault our choices! Yet your belief that you will be God of your own planet someday, does not seem real to me!

good, because we don't believe that. Jenny....I thought you weren't going to make fun of my beliefs?

I like to drink coffee, and it has health benefits! You think it is wrong, and I cannot understand that! It is beside the point if that is potentially harmful for your child or not! It is still your conscience dictating how you live your life, and I don't see anything wrong with coffee, or a little alcohol, or whatever

No problem. That I don't drink coffee, tea or booze doesn't make doing so a sin FOR YOU. In addition, my NOT drinking coffee or tea doesn't affect you or my child. It doesn't put anybody at risk, and unless you can find one of my beliefs that DOES put a child at the risk of actually dying, my beliefs are not pertinent to this conversation, are they?

However, the coffee/tea thing does illustrate a point here that I think you might not be getting.

Yes, I abstain from coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol. I also wear Temple garments and believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture as well as the Bible, and other things that you have stated are silly. That's not a problem; my beliefs do not have any impact upon yours or the way you live your life. They do not put your child at physical risk. If you were a nurse or doctor in a hospital, my beliefs would not force you to abandon your religious and ethical beliefs.

YOUR beliefs, however, do....and what makes you think that your beliefs trump theirs in something this serious? Now if YOU were the one refusing a life saving blood transfusion, no problem. Your beliefs, your right; that is well established for all sorts of things. The problem here is when your beliefs put someone who either doesn't share them, or who is too young to understand what's happening and unable to make such decisions for him/herself. I'm very glad that research has found alternatives to blood products that narrow these events down. I hope that eventually such discoveries will make these events a thing of the past; that there is no time at which one can say 'blood transfusion or die." However, that time hasn't come quite yet. These events are rare...but they happen.

So the question is: in such a case, do your religious beliefs....which will result in the death of a child...trump the doctor's, whose lack of action means that she is committing murder according to her beliefs, and the irreversible death of that child?

I've said that this will probably never happen to me...at least, I can't think of anything that would do that, so it's not a question I have to ask myself. However, I think you need to ask it of yourself. Seriously.