Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Pudding]

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.

Okay, that is none of your business.
This thread is to provide information to those who might be interested.

Please provide the information whether Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage patient should accept blood transfusion or accept no-blood-transfusion medical care.
Which medical care will have more survival chance/rate to be a life saver to save those patient life?

You don't know.
But you still saying blood transfusion is not a life saver.

So if there're any non-JW believes you and they make decision to choose no-blood-tranfusion medical care for themself or their family, then the patient die because of no-blood-tranfusion medical care, and if the survival chance using blood transfusion is highher than without blood transfusion in the situation of Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage, will you responsible for their death?
edit

 

[Deeje]

Okay, that is none of your business.
This thread is to provide information to those who might be interested.

Please provide the information whether Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage patient should accept blood transfusion or accept no-blood-transfusion medical care.
Which medical care will have more survival chance/rate to be a life saver to save those patient life?

You don't know.
But you still saying blood transfusion is not a life saver.

So if there're any non-JW believes you and they make decision to choose no-blood-tranfusion medical care for themself or their family, then the patient die because of no-blood-tranfusion medical care, will you responsible for their death?

After all that, this is your conclusion? Why am I not surprised.

 

[Pudding]

After all that, this is your conclusion? Why am I not surprised.

So you'll not responsible for their death arising from your information if your misleading and incomplete information turns out to be responsible for their death?
That is not very kind of you if you do so.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Gen 1:29-30
God say plant is their food.

Gen 9:3-4
God say Adam shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
So God means Adam shall not eat plant's blood?
Or God means Adam shall not eat animal's blood?

If God say Adam cannot eat animal's blood, but God haven't say cannot eat meat.
So can Adam eat meat?
Can God be less ambiguous?

Adam is vegetarian?
God say Adam shall not eat animal or living moving thing's flesh with its blood.
Can/shall Adam eat animal or living moving thing's flesh without its blood?

God didn't say Adam could eat meat, God told Noah he could eat meat, after the flood

 

[Pudding]

God didn't say Adam could eat meat, God told Noah he could eat meat, after the flood

Sorry, my mistake to mismatch them.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

In old testament he allows slavery, immoral raping law, killing babies and many other immoral action/law. I'll not surprise if he allows another immoral behaviour.

Yes God did allow slavery, but who were the slaves? His own people! He allowed His chosen people to be slaves.

 

[Pudding]

Yes God did allow slavery, but who were the slaves? His own people! He allowed His chosen people to be slaves.

Please elaborate.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Please elaborate.

Israel, God's chosen people, offspring of Abraham were slaves in Egypt for 400 years.

Gen 15:13-14 (ESVST) 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, " Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes God did allow slavery, but who were the slaves? His own people! He allowed His chosen people to be slaves.

It says the Hebrew can own slaves from other peoples, forever, and hand them on as an inheritance.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Oops

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes God did allow slavery, but who were the slaves? His own people! He allowed His chosen people to be slaves.

I'm not sure why you liked what I said.

It adds to what Pudding said. The Hebrew were allowed to own real slaves. They were allowed to kill babies. They were allowed to rape, etc.

*

 

[HonestJoe]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons.

With some justfication. Making modern clinical decisions on the basis of ancient religious doctrine is irrational. Any changes to scientific understanding or clinical practice don't change that. To be fair, JWs making such decisions for themselves tend not to attract much attention, it's when they're imposed on children that people object.

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.

Well the title of that video is "Blood, still saving lives but there are risks" so the answer to your opening question is yes, blood transfusions are really life saving. It's asking legitimate questions about how and when it's used but that's still a fundamentally different approach to the JW religious one and it's dishonest to try to link the two.

 

[Deeje]

So you'll not responsible for their death arising from your information if your misleading and incomplete information turns out to be responsible for their death?
That is not very kind of you if you do so.

You created the strawman that you are now attacking...... What people do about the information that is contained in the video is their personal choice...not mine.
It is doctors saying that transfusions are not safe, I am just passing on the information for anyone who might be interested.
Our stance is scriptural, not medical. But the video shows that our position is not without merit.

 

[Deeje]

With some justfication. Making modern clinical decisions on the basis of ancient religious doctrine is irrational.

Who said anything about making modern clinical decisions based on ancient religious doctrine? These modern clinical decisions are being made because of what modern medical records are revealing. Blood is not now considered "good" medicine. In all the transfusions given only 12% were considered "necessary".
JW's are not part of the pie chart because for us NO transfusion is ever "necessary". Our stance has proven that medicine got it wrong...not us. We recover very well in the majority of cases without blood. The medical profession itself is grateful to us for providing the data needed to see this issue clearly.

Any changes to scientific understanding or clinical practice don't change that.

Don't recall saying that they did.

To be fair, JWs making such decisions for themselves tend not to attract much attention, it's when they're imposed on children that people object.

The findings of the downside of blood transfusions are equally binding on our children. If the risk exists for adults, then they exist equally for children.
Misinformed judges making our children wards of the state to force blood transfusions on them is tantamount to sanctioning rape. Would you stand by and allow the authorities to violate your child's body under the mistaken notion that they are saving the child's life? What if the child dies as a result of the transfusion?....or contracts some deadly disease that was not screened for in the process? Who pays then?

Well the title of that video is "Blood, still saving lives but there are risks" so the answer to your opening question is yes, blood transfusions are really life saving. It's asking legitimate questions about how and when it's used but that's still a fundamentally different approach to the JW religious one and it's dishonest to try to link the two.

There is no dishonesty in the information...only dishonesty in the responses to it.

Just think....if only 12% of transfusions are deemed "necessary" by the medical professionals themselves.....then that means that 88% are still carried out "unnecessarily" putting patients health and safety at risk. You want to put your life in their hands? Be my guest.

 

[idav]

Blood is a very symbolic thing in the bible, it is life giving and Jesus wants us to drink his blood and eat the bread of life, but not literally. Right? So how can I take "blood" literally anywhere else. He is not asking people to be zombies and vampires, Jesus spoke in parables and symbolism. Now with science actually showing that blood can be life giving I kinda start to wonder.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Nothing you have posted validates or supports the position that blood transfusion is bad because "god" said so. If you think that it does it is only bias speaking. You posted a link that suggested ADULT blood transfusion is over used. This is hardly what jws have gotten flack over....the flack is over child abuse. And, if medical professionals say that a blood transfusion would increase the chance of survival, then I would see a mandatory blood transfusion for children in those cases. Should we have better alternatives by now? Absolutely. Should we continue researching alternatives? Absolutely.

But, do not kid yourself. If faith is making someone choose medical advice when a life is in the balance, then that decision is foolish. If it turns out it was the best decision then it is so out of luck, not wisdom, not rationality, and still deserves "flack." If, however, one looked to alternatives and chose the best treatment based on the best evidence at the time....then one can challenge "flack."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And, if medical professionals say that a blood transfusion would increase the chance of survival, then I would see a mandatory blood transfusion for children in those cases.

Yeah, that's really the problem here. If you want to refuse a blood transfusion for yourself, that's your own business. But you should have no right to refuse a blood transfusion for a child when it can save their life. That should be against the law.

 

[Deeje]

Nothing you have posted validates or supports the position that blood transfusion is bad because "god" said so. If you think that it does it is only bias speaking. You posted a link that suggested ADULT blood transfusion is over used. This is hardly what jws have gotten flack over....the flack is over child abuse. And, if medical professionals say that a blood transfusion would increase the chance of survival, then I would see a mandatory blood transfusion for children in those cases. Should we have better alternatives by now? Absolutely. Should we continue researching alternatives? Absolutely.

But, do not kid yourself. If faith is making someone choose medical advice when a life is in the balance, then that decision is foolish. If it turns out it was the best decision then it is so out of luck, not wisdom, not rationality, and still deserves "flack." If, however, one looked to alternatives and chose the best treatment based on the best evidence at the time....then one can challenge "flack."

I will repeat what I said before....

The findings of the downside of blood transfusions are equally binding on our children. If the risk exists for adults, then they exist equally for children.
Misinformed judges making our children wards of the state to force blood transfusions on them is tantamount to sanctioning rape. Would you stand by and allow the authorities to violate your child's body under the mistaken notion that they are saving the child's life? Whose advice are they relying on to be accurate?...misinformed doctors.

What if the child dies as a result of the transfusion?....or contracts some deadly disease that was not screened for in the process? Who is at fault then?

Now that the stats verify what we have been saying all along, will misinformed judges still want to force this "treatment" on young children, knowing that so many in the medical profession now consider it dangerous? Misinformation can cause loss of life. Any doctor who still treats blood transfusions as common and acceptable practice is not up to date on the latest findings. Who wants to be treated by a doctor whose knowledge is not up to date on something this serious?

 

[McBell]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons.

Yes they have.
And for good reason.

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.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

Perhaps you should reveal what you think your linked video is saying?
For it sure isn't even implying, let alone suggesting, a JW style ban of blood transfusions.

 

[McBell]

Now that the stats verify what we have been saying all along,

Really?
Where are these "stats"?

Who wants to be treated by a doctor whose knowledge is not up to date on something this serious?

Apparently the those who base medical decisions upon the Watchtowers latest reinterpretation of ancient texts....