I have repeatedly said that I agree that blood is not always as needed as once thought. This does not mean, however, that blood should be permanently shelved as a life saving means of treatment. I also understand that studies can be produced from both sides of the issue. I believe that whether or not blood should be given should be done solely on a patient to patient issue. But I draw the line, as I said, where it pertains to children. I am equally as dead set against children not being immunized. The risks to other children from one child not being immunized can become a serious problem. For example, a child who contracts measles and that child has a mother at home who is pregnant. Or the resurgence of small pox, which was at one time, totally eradicated. Or the epidemic rise of whooping cough. Similarly, blood in some cases with children who need it to live should never stop that child from receiving it, despite what the parents may or may not want based on religious beliefs. The bottom line trouble here is that refusal of blood in based on belief and cannot be proven based solely on belief.Anecdotal evidence is not the basis for this thread. I have anecdotal evidence too for my own side of this issue....the message from these medical specialists is not ambiguous. The opening remarks in the video are enough to make you watch the rest and take to heart the message. There has been a "paradigm shift"....a complete change of mind based on clinical studies.
In "42 out of 45 patient studies, (involving 272,590 patients) the risk of transfusion was found to outweigh the benefits".
Patients who received blood transfusions were more "exposed to morbidity (adverse outcome) and mortality" (death) than those who had the same procedures without blood.
By their own admission, almost 90% of blood transfusions are unnecessary and even dangerous. Which applies to children too.
Please understand that this is an emotive issue that raises the ire of many....but doctors are admitting that blood is not the "life saving" medicine they once thought it to be....that is the message....but who is listening?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
There are always going to be doctors and researchers who will disagree with this or that type of treatment. This one doctor is of course, welcome to his opinions, particularly where that opinion is based on his research. But I would ask this: How many people were in this study? Did this man replicate the study with the same results? If not, why not? Have other researchers validated and replicated his study? What were their results? What were his parameters for inclusion or exclusion in this study? Was this a double blind study? What weight did the doctor give to such things are gender, race, age, etc? What was the basis for his original theory? Did he find other older studies that found the same results? How old were these studies? Do you begin to see how one study can be either refuted or upheld?
Is this a serious question?
You are attempting to place a blanket assertion on all peoples. What you say may be true for one person but result in death in another. The same applies to children. Have you considered this issue with regards to elders? The issue of receiving blood should always be only considered on a case by case consideration. It should never be used in a blanket manner. Imagine giving every single patient Haldol for mental illnesses. Or using the exact same chemotherapy drug on every cancer patient. No doctor would ever do this. It must be based on one patient and one patient only.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yes, it is a serious question. Children including neonates have less blood than adults, so there is no reason to assume all the same transfusion risks and benefits are equal.Is this a serious question?
In the patient studies, less that 12% of transfusions were deemed "necessary".....but obviously not by the specialist doctors like Prof Shander who asserts that even the most profound anemia can be treated quickly and sustainably without using blood. It seems to depend on the doctor and his own personal position on blood and blood products. We would choose a doctor who is up to date and on board with bloodless medicine.
This is not the case in any state that I know of. Given the current situation, most doctors who insist on using blood and would force a transfusion against the parent's wishes, would be betraying the fact that he/she has not kept up to date with current knowledge or practice. Judges who take that doctor's word for things will be equally misled.
As far as I am aware, most doctors will do their very best to comply with the parent's wishes, but have the final say legally over what they do. We have no power under the law to prevent this. Though bringing in other more informed doctors has sometimes alleviated a tense situation, allowing the child to be treated by someone with more respect for the parent's wishes and who can confidently treat the child without blood.
Second, you did not answer the questions.
Olinda
Member
The JW publication "Awake" of May 22, 1994, has on its cover several children and teenagers who died as a result of refusing blood transfusions. The article is proudly titled "Youth who put God first". These children died young, no chance of possible side effects of transfusions.
Deeje, do you seriously contend that the legal attempts to keep these children alive were "tantamount to rape. . . under the mistaken notion that they are saving a child's life?"
When you see for yourself how blood transfusion compromises red cell delivery to the body, it is obvious that transfusions for infants and young children are just as dangerous as they are for adults. It is nonsense to believe otherwise. It is apparent then that some survive in spite of the transfusion, rather than because of it.
Our choice of doctor would be of the utmost importance if we or our child were needing emergency procedures or surgery. JW's have a Hospital Liaison Committee in each city who are continually kept up to date with all procedures and techniques that involve non blood management of all condition, from all over the world....it is their job.
Doctors often refer to the advice of these brothers when treating JW patients. They are trusted to keep doctors up to date with the latest findings and techniques.
Yes I did. No true JW will accept blood for any reason. Our position on blood is not negotiable. Our outcomes are almost always good, despite the dire predictions of medical personnel. Those who do lose their lives, would in all probability have died anyway. A transfusion does not guarantee that a person will live. In fact more people die after accepting blood that those who refuse it.
If our children need treatment and blood is suggested, we would seek the advice of the HLC and find a doctor who can confidently treat the child without blood. He/she is then asked to take over from the one who cannot or will not accede to the parent's wishes.
In a worst case scenario, the legal system takes it out of our hands. We have no legal say, so all we can do is pray for a good outcome, knowing that we did all we could not to break God's law on the sanctity of blood. We do not force our views on anyone else and as parents, we do not assign another religion to our children.
Perhaps I can answer that with the actual article....if you are going to cite it...at least we can allow people to read it.
I will have to split it up into two parts but whoever wishes can read these experiences for themselves.
May 22 1994 Awake! (Part 1)
"Youths Who Have “Power Beyond What Is Normal”
YOU are young. Only 12. You have a family you love. You have school friends you enjoy. You have outings at the beach and in the mountains. You feel awe when gazing at a night sky packed with stars. You have your whole life ahead of you.
And now you have cancer. Such news is a blow when you’re 60. It’s total devastation when you’re 12.
Lenae Martinez
So it seemed for 12-year-old Lenae Martinez. Her hope was to live forever on a paradise earth. This hope was bolstered by the Bible training she had received from her parents, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Had not she herself read in the Bible that the earth would continue forever, that it was created to be inhabited forever, and that the meek would inherit it forever?—Ecclesiastes 1:4; Isaiah 45:18; Matthew 5:5.
Now she was in the Valley Children’s Hospital in Fresno, California, U.S.A. She had been admitted there for what appeared to be a kidney infection. Tests revealed, however, that she had leukemia. The doctors treating Lenae determined that packed red blood cells and platelets should be transfused and chemotherapy started immediately.
Lenae said that she wanted no blood or blood products, that she had been taught that God forbids that, as shown in the Bible books of Leviticus and Acts. “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.” (Acts 15:28, 29) Her parents supported her in this stand, but Lenae stressed that it was her decision and it was very important to her.
The doctors talked several times with Lenae and her parents. Even so, they came again one afternoon. Lenae said concerning this visit: “I was feeling very weak from all the pain and had been vomiting a lot of blood. They asked me the same questions, only in a different way. I told them again: ‘I don’t want any blood or blood products. I would rather accept death, if necessary, than to break my promise to Jehovah God to do his will.’”
Lenae continued: “They were back the next morning. The platelets were dropping, and my fever was still high. I could tell the doctor listened to me more this time. Even though they didn’t like my stand, they did say I was a very mature 12-year-old. Later my pediatrician came in and told me he was sorry but nothing would help me but the chemotherapy and transfusions. He left and said he would be back later.
“When he left, I started to cry very hard because he had taken care of me all my life, and now I felt like he was betraying me. When he came in later, I told him how he had made me feel—that he didn’t care about me anymore. This surprised him, and he said he was sorry. He did not mean to hurt me. He looked at me and said: ‘Well, Lenae, if that is the way it has to be, then I will see you in heaven.’ He took his glasses off and, with big tears in his eyes, said he loved me and gave me a big hug. I thanked him and said: ‘Thank you. I love you too, Dr. Gillespie, but I hope to live on a paradise earth in the resurrection.’”
Then two doctors and a lawyer came, told Lenae’s parents that they wanted to talk to her alone, and asked the parents to leave, which they did. Through all this discussion, the doctors had been very considerate and kind and were impressed with Lenae’s articulate way of speaking and her deep conviction.
When alone with her, they told her that she was dying of leukemia and said: “But blood transfusions will prolong your life. If you refuse blood, you will die in a few days.”
“If I take blood,” Lenae asked, “how long will that prolong my life?”
“About three to six months,” they answered.
“What can I do in six months?” she asked.
“You will get strong. You can do many things. You can visit Disney World. You can see many other places.”
Lenae thought a bit, then answered: “I have served Jehovah all my life, 12 years. He has promised me everlasting life in Paradise if I obey him. I will not turn away from him now for six months of life. I want to be faithful until I die. Then I know in his due time he will resurrect me from death and give me everlasting life. Then I will have plenty of time for everything I want to do.”
The doctors and the lawyer were visibly impressed. They commended her and went out and told her parents that she thinks and talks like an adult and is able to make her own decisions. They recommended to the ethics committee of the Valley Children’s Hospital that Lenae be viewed as a mature minor. This committee, made up of doctors and other health-care professionals, along with a professor of ethics from Fresno State University, made the decision to allow Lenae to make her own decisions with regard to her medical treatment. They considered Lenae a mature minor. No court order was sought.
After a long, difficult night, at 6:30 a.m., September 22, 1993, Lenae fell asleep in death in the arms of her mother. The dignity and calmness of that night are etched in the minds of those present. There were 482 who attended the memorial service, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, who had been impressed by Lenae’s faith and integrity.
The parents and friends of Lenae were deeply grateful that the doctors and nurses and administrators of the Valley Children’s Hospital were so perceptive in discerning the maturity of this minor and that no court case was necessary to make that decision.
Crystal Moore
Such consideration was not accorded 17-year-old Crystal Moore when she was admitted to Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City. She was suffering from inflammatory bowel disease. Upon her admission to the hospital, Crystal, along with her parents, emphasized repeatedly her refusal to accept blood. She did not want to die; rather, she wanted medical treatment consistent with the Bible’s command to abstain from blood.—Acts 15:28, 29.
The medical team caring for Crystal was certain that her condition required a blood transfusion. One doctor bluntly stated: “If Crystal does not have a blood transfusion by Thursday, June 15, then on Friday, June 16, she will be dead!” On June 16, Crystal was not dead, and the hospital applied to the Supreme Court of the State of New York for authority to force transfusions.
At the hearing, which was hurriedly convened at the hospital that morning, one of the physicians testified that Crystal needed two units of blood immediately and might need at least an additional ten units. He further stated that if Crystal tried to resist the transfusions, he would tie her to the bed with wrist and leg restraints to accomplish the procedure. Crystal told the doctors that she would “scream and holler” if they attempted to transfuse her and that as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, she viewed any forcible administration of blood to be as repulsive as rape.
Despite her attorney’s repeated requests at the hearing, Crystal was denied the opportunity to speak for herself before the court to demonstrate her decision-making ability. Although Crystal had just received an award in the Super Youth Program in recognition of her academic excellence and leadership at her high school, the trial judge refused to allow her to testify on record about her refusal of blood. This amounted to a denial of Crystal’s rights of due process of law, bodily self-determination, personal privacy, and religious freedom.
Although the trial court would not allow Crystal to testify on the record, the court did visit with Crystal alone in her room for about 20 minutes. After the visit the trial judge said that Crystal was “obviously very intelligent” and “very articulate” and explained that Crystal “certainly was sound in mind” and “capable of expressing herself fully.” Despite these observations, the trial court adamantly refused to allow Crystal the opportunity to decide on her own medical care.
On Sunday morning, June 18, Crystal needed emergency surgery, which she consented to, but continued to reject blood. Only three ounces [50-100 cc] of blood was lost during the procedure. Yet, the physicians claimed that a postoperative blood transfusion might be required. Another doctor testified that no transfusion was needed. He had routinely treated similar cases without blood for the past 13 years, and no follow-up transfusions were ever needed.
On June 22, 1989, the trial court gave temporary custody of Crystal to the hospital for purposes of blood transfusion to be given only if “necessary to protect and save her life.” This guardianship terminated when Crystal was discharged from the hospital. Crystal never needed blood, and none was ever transfused, but it is shocking to see how the court treated Crystal.
Since being discharged from the hospital, Crystal graduated from high school with honors. Shortly afterward, she became a full-time minister as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She became a tour guide at the Jersey City Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses and volunteered as a member of a crew that builds and remodels Kingdom Halls.
Yet, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center said that if she didn’t get transfused on June 15, she would be dead on June 16 and that if she resisted the transfusion, she would be tied down with wrist and leg restraints. When doctors wanting court orders to give blood declare blatantly that if the judge doesn’t comply immediately, the patient will die, let them remember the case of Crystal Moore.
Part 2
Lisa Kosack
Lisa’s first night in Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children was worse than a nightmare. She checked in at four in the afternoon and was immediately given a series of tests. She didn’t get to her room until a quarter past eleven that evening. At midnight—well, let Lisa tell what happened. “At midnight a nurse came in and said: ‘I have to give you some blood.’ I cried out: ‘I can’t take blood because I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses! I hope you know that! I hope you know that!’ ‘Well, yes, I do,’ she said, and immediately pulled out my IV and shoved in the blood. I was crying and becoming hysterical.”
What callous and cruel treatment to inflict on a sick and frightened 12-year-old girl in the middle of the night in strange surroundings! Lisa’s parents had taken her to Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children hoping to find kind and cooperative doctors. Instead, their daughter was subjected to the harrowing midnight transfusion, in spite of both Lisa and her parents’ position that blood or blood products are a violation of God’s law and are not to be used.—Acts 15:28, 29.
The next morning the hospital sought a court order to give transfusions. The trial lasted five days, presided over by Judge David R. Main. It was held in a room at the hospital, Lisa in attendance all five days. Lisa had acute myeloid leukemia, a condition usually fatal, although the doctors testified that the rate of cure was 30 percent. They prescribed multiple blood transfusions and intensive chemotherapy—a treatment involving extreme pain and debilitating side effects.
On the fourth day of the trial, Lisa gave testimony. One of the questions put to her was how the forced midnight transfusion made her feel. She explained that it made her feel like a dog being used for an experiment, that she felt she was being raped, and that being a minor made some people think they could do anything to her. She hated seeing someone else’s blood going into her, wondering if she would get AIDS or hepatitis or some other infectious disease from it. And chiefly, she was concerned about what Jehovah would think of her breaking his law against taking someone else’s blood into her body. She said if it ever happened again, she “would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood.”
Her attorney asked, “How does it make you feel, the Children’s Aid Society asking that custody be taken from your parents and given to them?”
“Well, it makes me feel very, very angry; it makes me feel that they are cruel because my parents have never beaten me, they have loved me and I love them, and whenever I was sick with strep throats or colds or anything, they took care of me. Their whole life was centered around me, and now just to have somebody, just because they disagree, to come and just remove me from them I think is very, very mean, and it upsets me a lot.”
“Do you want to die?”
“No, I don’t think anybody wants to die, but if I do die I’m not going to be scared, because I know that I have the hope of everlasting life in a paradise on earth.”
There were few dry eyes as Lisa courageously discussed her impending death, her faith in Jehovah, and her determination to remain obedient to his law on the sanctity of blood.
“Lisa,” her attorney continued, “would it make any difference to you to know that the court orders you to take transfusions?”
“No, because I’m still going to remain faithful to my God and listen to his commands, because God is a lot more superior than any court or any man.”
“Lisa, what would you like the judge to decide in this case?”
“Well, what I would like the judge to decide in this case is to have me just sent back to my parents and to have them to have custody again with me so I can be happy, and so I can go home and be in happy surroundings.”
And that is what Judge Main did decide. Excerpts from his decision follow.
“L. has told this court clearly and in a matter-of-fact way that, if an attempt is made to transfuse her with blood, she will fight that transfusion with all of the strength that she can muster. She has said, and I believe her, that she will scream and struggle and that she will pull the injecting device out of her arm and will attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed. I refuse to make any order which would put this child through that ordeal.”
Concerning the forced midnight transfusion, he said:
“I must find that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her religion and her age pursuant to s. 15(1). In these circumstances, upon being given a blood transfusion, her right to the security of her person pursuant to s. 7 was infringed.”
His impression of Lisa herself is interesting:
“L. is a beautiful, extremely intelligent, articulate, courteous, sensitive and, most importantly, a courageous person. She has wisdom and maturity well beyond her years and I think it would be safe to say that she has all of the positive attributes that any parent would want in a child. She has a well thought out, firm and clear religious belief. In my view, no amount of counselling from whatever source or pressure from her parents or anyone else, including an order of this court, would shake or alter her religious beliefs. I believe that L. K. should be given the opportunity to fight this disease with dignity and peace of mind.”
“Application dismissed.”
Lisa and her family left the hospital that day. Lisa did, indeed, fight her disease with dignity and peace of mind. She died peacefully at home, in the loving arms of her mother and father. In so doing she joined the ranks of many other youthful Witnesses of Jehovah who put God first. As a result, she will, with them, enjoy the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise: “He that loses his life for my sake will find it.”—Matthew 10:39, footnote.
Ernestine Gregory
At 17 years of age, Ernestine was diagnosed as suffering from leukemia. Upon being hospitalized, she refused to consent to the use of blood products to support the chemotherapy the doctors wanted to administer. Because of Ernestine’s refusal and her mother’s support of her choice of nonblood treatment, the hospital reported the matter to the welfare officials in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., who in turn sought a court order to use blood. A hearing was arranged, at which the trial court heard testimony from Ernestine, a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, and an attorney, as well as from other people involved.
Ernestine told her doctor she did not want blood. That it was her own personal decision based on her reading of the Bible. That an involuntary transfusion administered under court order still disrespects God’s law and is wrong in her eyes, regardless of court authority. That she was not opposed to medical treatment and did not want to die. That her decision was not a death wish, not suicidal; however, she did not fear death.
Stanley Yachnin, M.D., testified that he was “impressed with Ernestine’s maturity, her sense of herself,” and the sincerity of her religious beliefs. He also said Ernestine understood the nature and consequences of her illness. Because of her comprehension, Dr. Yachnin saw no need to call in a psychiatrist or a psychologist.
Nevertheless, one was called, Ner Littner, M.D., a psychiatrist, who after talking with Ernestine was of the opinion that she had the maturity of someone between the ages of 18 and 21. He stated that Ernestine exhibited an understanding of the implications of accepting or refusing blood transfusions. He said she accepted this, not because she was under the control of another, but because she believed this herself. Dr. Littner said Ernestine should be allowed to make her own decision in this matter.
Jane McAtee, an attorney for the hospital, testified that after interviewing Ernestine, she believed that Ernestine understood the nature of her illness and that she “seemed fully capable of understanding her decision and accepting the consequences of it.”
The court too was very impressed with Ernestine’s testimony. The court found that Ernestine was a mature 17-year-old, able to make informed medical decisions; yet, amazingly, the court granted an order allowing blood transfusions. At the hospital two doctors were standing by, transfusion equipment set up, and as soon as the court’s decision came in, the transfusion was forcibly given to Ernestine in spite of her vigorous protests. The court’s order was promptly appealed but not in time to stop the hospital’s precipitate transfusion.
To stop any further transfusions, the trial court’s order was first appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court. In a two-to-one decision, the Appellate Court held that Ernestine could not be forced to submit to blood transfusions against her will. The court reasoned that Ernestine’s First Amendment right of religious free exercise along with her constitutional right of privacy protected her right as a mature minor to refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons.
The child-welfare officials then appealed the Appellate Court’s decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that even though Ernestine was a minor, she had the right to refuse medical treatment that was objectionable to her. This supreme court based its decision on the common law right of bodily self-determination and the mature-minor rule. The standard to be applied in mature-minor cases in Illinois was summarized by the Illinois Supreme Court in the following statement:
“If the evidence is clear and convincing that the minor is mature enough to appreciate the consequences of her actions, and that the minor is mature enough to exercise the judgment of an adult, then the mature minor doctrine affords her the common law right to consent to or refuse medical treatment.”
Ernestine had no further transfusions, and she did not die from her leukemia. Ernestine stood firm and put God first, like the other young people mentioned previously. Each one received “power beyond what is normal.”—2 Corinthians 4:7."
I am proud of these beautiful and faithful young people and know that I will see them one day in the new world....healthy and happy.
Lisa Kosack
Lisa’s first night in Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children was worse than a nightmare. She checked in at four in the afternoon and was immediately given a series of tests. She didn’t get to her room until a quarter past eleven that evening. At midnight—well, let Lisa tell what happened. “At midnight a nurse came in and said: ‘I have to give you some blood.’ I cried out: ‘I can’t take blood because I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses! I hope you know that! I hope you know that!’ ‘Well, yes, I do,’ she said, and immediately pulled out my IV and shoved in the blood. I was crying and becoming hysterical.”
What callous and cruel treatment to inflict on a sick and frightened 12-year-old girl in the middle of the night in strange surroundings! Lisa’s parents had taken her to Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children hoping to find kind and cooperative doctors. Instead, their daughter was subjected to the harrowing midnight transfusion, in spite of both Lisa and her parents’ position that blood or blood products are a violation of God’s law and are not to be used.—Acts 15:28, 29.
The next morning the hospital sought a court order to give transfusions. The trial lasted five days, presided over by Judge David R. Main. It was held in a room at the hospital, Lisa in attendance all five days. Lisa had acute myeloid leukemia, a condition usually fatal, although the doctors testified that the rate of cure was 30 percent. They prescribed multiple blood transfusions and intensive chemotherapy—a treatment involving extreme pain and debilitating side effects.
On the fourth day of the trial, Lisa gave testimony. One of the questions put to her was how the forced midnight transfusion made her feel. She explained that it made her feel like a dog being used for an experiment, that she felt she was being raped, and that being a minor made some people think they could do anything to her. She hated seeing someone else’s blood going into her, wondering if she would get AIDS or hepatitis or some other infectious disease from it. And chiefly, she was concerned about what Jehovah would think of her breaking his law against taking someone else’s blood into her body. She said if it ever happened again, she “would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood.”
Her attorney asked, “How does it make you feel, the Children’s Aid Society asking that custody be taken from your parents and given to them?”
“Well, it makes me feel very, very angry; it makes me feel that they are cruel because my parents have never beaten me, they have loved me and I love them, and whenever I was sick with strep throats or colds or anything, they took care of me. Their whole life was centered around me, and now just to have somebody, just because they disagree, to come and just remove me from them I think is very, very mean, and it upsets me a lot.”
“Do you want to die?”
“No, I don’t think anybody wants to die, but if I do die I’m not going to be scared, because I know that I have the hope of everlasting life in a paradise on earth.”
There were few dry eyes as Lisa courageously discussed her impending death, her faith in Jehovah, and her determination to remain obedient to his law on the sanctity of blood.
“Lisa,” her attorney continued, “would it make any difference to you to know that the court orders you to take transfusions?”
“No, because I’m still going to remain faithful to my God and listen to his commands, because God is a lot more superior than any court or any man.”
“Lisa, what would you like the judge to decide in this case?”
“Well, what I would like the judge to decide in this case is to have me just sent back to my parents and to have them to have custody again with me so I can be happy, and so I can go home and be in happy surroundings.”
And that is what Judge Main did decide. Excerpts from his decision follow.
“L. has told this court clearly and in a matter-of-fact way that, if an attempt is made to transfuse her with blood, she will fight that transfusion with all of the strength that she can muster. She has said, and I believe her, that she will scream and struggle and that she will pull the injecting device out of her arm and will attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed. I refuse to make any order which would put this child through that ordeal.”
Concerning the forced midnight transfusion, he said:
“I must find that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her religion and her age pursuant to s. 15(1). In these circumstances, upon being given a blood transfusion, her right to the security of her person pursuant to s. 7 was infringed.”
His impression of Lisa herself is interesting:
“L. is a beautiful, extremely intelligent, articulate, courteous, sensitive and, most importantly, a courageous person. She has wisdom and maturity well beyond her years and I think it would be safe to say that she has all of the positive attributes that any parent would want in a child. She has a well thought out, firm and clear religious belief. In my view, no amount of counselling from whatever source or pressure from her parents or anyone else, including an order of this court, would shake or alter her religious beliefs. I believe that L. K. should be given the opportunity to fight this disease with dignity and peace of mind.”
“Application dismissed.”
Lisa and her family left the hospital that day. Lisa did, indeed, fight her disease with dignity and peace of mind. She died peacefully at home, in the loving arms of her mother and father. In so doing she joined the ranks of many other youthful Witnesses of Jehovah who put God first. As a result, she will, with them, enjoy the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise: “He that loses his life for my sake will find it.”—Matthew 10:39, footnote.
Ernestine Gregory
At 17 years of age, Ernestine was diagnosed as suffering from leukemia. Upon being hospitalized, she refused to consent to the use of blood products to support the chemotherapy the doctors wanted to administer. Because of Ernestine’s refusal and her mother’s support of her choice of nonblood treatment, the hospital reported the matter to the welfare officials in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., who in turn sought a court order to use blood. A hearing was arranged, at which the trial court heard testimony from Ernestine, a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, and an attorney, as well as from other people involved.
Ernestine told her doctor she did not want blood. That it was her own personal decision based on her reading of the Bible. That an involuntary transfusion administered under court order still disrespects God’s law and is wrong in her eyes, regardless of court authority. That she was not opposed to medical treatment and did not want to die. That her decision was not a death wish, not suicidal; however, she did not fear death.
Stanley Yachnin, M.D., testified that he was “impressed with Ernestine’s maturity, her sense of herself,” and the sincerity of her religious beliefs. He also said Ernestine understood the nature and consequences of her illness. Because of her comprehension, Dr. Yachnin saw no need to call in a psychiatrist or a psychologist.
Nevertheless, one was called, Ner Littner, M.D., a psychiatrist, who after talking with Ernestine was of the opinion that she had the maturity of someone between the ages of 18 and 21. He stated that Ernestine exhibited an understanding of the implications of accepting or refusing blood transfusions. He said she accepted this, not because she was under the control of another, but because she believed this herself. Dr. Littner said Ernestine should be allowed to make her own decision in this matter.
Jane McAtee, an attorney for the hospital, testified that after interviewing Ernestine, she believed that Ernestine understood the nature of her illness and that she “seemed fully capable of understanding her decision and accepting the consequences of it.”
The court too was very impressed with Ernestine’s testimony. The court found that Ernestine was a mature 17-year-old, able to make informed medical decisions; yet, amazingly, the court granted an order allowing blood transfusions. At the hospital two doctors were standing by, transfusion equipment set up, and as soon as the court’s decision came in, the transfusion was forcibly given to Ernestine in spite of her vigorous protests. The court’s order was promptly appealed but not in time to stop the hospital’s precipitate transfusion.
To stop any further transfusions, the trial court’s order was first appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court. In a two-to-one decision, the Appellate Court held that Ernestine could not be forced to submit to blood transfusions against her will. The court reasoned that Ernestine’s First Amendment right of religious free exercise along with her constitutional right of privacy protected her right as a mature minor to refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons.
The child-welfare officials then appealed the Appellate Court’s decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that even though Ernestine was a minor, she had the right to refuse medical treatment that was objectionable to her. This supreme court based its decision on the common law right of bodily self-determination and the mature-minor rule. The standard to be applied in mature-minor cases in Illinois was summarized by the Illinois Supreme Court in the following statement:
“If the evidence is clear and convincing that the minor is mature enough to appreciate the consequences of her actions, and that the minor is mature enough to exercise the judgment of an adult, then the mature minor doctrine affords her the common law right to consent to or refuse medical treatment.”
Ernestine had no further transfusions, and she did not die from her leukemia. Ernestine stood firm and put God first, like the other young people mentioned previously. Each one received “power beyond what is normal.”—2 Corinthians 4:7."
I am proud of these beautiful and faithful young people and know that I will see them one day in the new world....healthy and happy.
Curious George
Veteran Member
So, what I am reading is, no you have no sources that address children. And, you would not consent to a transfusion for your child even were your child a case where blood transfusion was beneficial.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Why op ignores all replies from this poster?
Pudding
Well-Known Member
@Deeje
The op's position is that according to the studies he link, blood transfusion have risks and majority of the blood transfusion is unnecessary, so it's advise to replace blood transfusion with alternative no-blood-transfusion care with the case of when blood transfusion is unnecessary; but when the case that blood transfusion is necessary, blood transfusion should still be advise to use in treatment for the patient who need it for their situation. Are my interpretation to op's position correct?
About using no-blood-transfusion care to replace blood transfusion in the case that blood transfusion is unnecessary, that is an area should be discuss more detailful.
Please ask the professional Australia government medical researcher to list every situation that blood transfusion is unnecessary and no-blood-transfusion care have less risks and more benefit for the patient in those situation.
Please ask them to provide their studies and let other country's professional researcher to peer review or replicate their studies to see how it'll going.
Needs more research results and peer reviews to verify the validity of that research result from Australia government and to decide whether those unnecessary case of blood transfusion is really unnecessary and no-blood-transfusion care can safely replace them.
What is other country's government medical professional stance for the risks of blood transfusion?
What will their stance and results turns out to be after they replicate or peer review the Australia government professional medical researcher's studies?
Non-government but reputable valid professional medical groups should also involve in this to replicate or peer review of those studies.
The op's position is that according to the studies he link, blood transfusion have risks and majority of the blood transfusion is unnecessary, so it's advise to replace blood transfusion with alternative no-blood-transfusion care with the case of when blood transfusion is unnecessary; but when the case that blood transfusion is necessary, blood transfusion should still be advise to use in treatment for the patient who need it for their situation. Are my interpretation to op's position correct?
About using no-blood-transfusion care to replace blood transfusion in the case that blood transfusion is unnecessary, that is an area should be discuss more detailful.
Please ask the professional Australia government medical researcher to list every situation that blood transfusion is unnecessary and no-blood-transfusion care have less risks and more benefit for the patient in those situation.
Please ask them to provide their studies and let other country's professional researcher to peer review or replicate their studies to see how it'll going.
Needs more research results and peer reviews to verify the validity of that research result from Australia government and to decide whether those unnecessary case of blood transfusion is really unnecessary and no-blood-transfusion care can safely replace them.
What is other country's government medical professional stance for the risks of blood transfusion?
What will their stance and results turns out to be after they replicate or peer review the Australia government professional medical researcher's studies?
Non-government but reputable valid professional medical groups should also involve in this to replicate or peer review of those studies.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Why? Do god's laws go out of effect with the passage of time? Can you simply disregard an admonition from god because times have changed? Can you now ignore god's directive about remarriage because today divorce and remarriage is so commonplace?
.
Hmm. don't remember seeing any scripture to this effect.
Okay.
So, taking the meaning of the scriptural prohibition as it was intended, can JW women speak in church or not?
Why not?
Why not?
Why not?
.
Last edited:
Olinda
Member
@Deeje, thank you for posting the article. Of course it is true that medical attendants sometimes do not manage interactions with their patients all that well. However the article does not support your assertion that "Our outcomes are almost always good, despite the dire predictions of medical personnel. Those who do lose their lives, would in all probability have died anyway. A transfusion does not guarantee that a person will live. In fact more people die after accepting blood that those who refuse it."
The article does not say which of these children were baptised Witnesses. I understand that children as young as 10 years may be baptised. For those that were, the consequences of not refusing a blood transfusion are being 'disfellowshipped' and subsequently shunned by all jws, including their own family. This can also happen to jw parents who do not do everything possible to prevent their child from being transfused. So however articulate these children were, their decisions were heavily influenced, and they faced pressures that should have been spared any children, let alone sick ones.
When you make repeated statements that the jw position is vindicated by current medical research, do you consider that some decades ago your religion also forbade organ transfer? Was that justified, and were the resulting deaths from kidney failure etc necessary?
The article does not say which of these children were baptised Witnesses. I understand that children as young as 10 years may be baptised. For those that were, the consequences of not refusing a blood transfusion are being 'disfellowshipped' and subsequently shunned by all jws, including their own family. This can also happen to jw parents who do not do everything possible to prevent their child from being transfused. So however articulate these children were, their decisions were heavily influenced, and they faced pressures that should have been spared any children, let alone sick ones.
When you make repeated statements that the jw position is vindicated by current medical research, do you consider that some decades ago your religion also forbade organ transfer? Was that justified, and were the resulting deaths from kidney failure etc necessary?
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Are blood transfusions really life saving?
Yes, they are.
As a CSI officer that often has to go to the O.R. after someone has been shot, I can tell you first hand that blood transfusions can save lives. I go there because if they don't make it, I am allowed to scrub up, go in and take pictures of their wounds.
If you are shot and bleeding out, the only thing that will save you is compatible blood. If the blood is screened properly, then the risk you speak of is very minimal, but the reward is substantial: surviving.
It comes down to two choices:
1. reject the blood and die.
2. accept the blood and be given a chance to live.
Yes, they are.
As a CSI officer that often has to go to the O.R. after someone has been shot, I can tell you first hand that blood transfusions can save lives. I go there because if they don't make it, I am allowed to scrub up, go in and take pictures of their wounds.
If you are shot and bleeding out, the only thing that will save you is compatible blood. If the blood is screened properly, then the risk you speak of is very minimal, but the reward is substantial: surviving.
It comes down to two choices:
1. reject the blood and die.
2. accept the blood and be given a chance to live.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
How much hemoglobin, the chemical that carries oxygen to cells, can I find in normal saline? I'm an RN. I want studies in peer reviewed journals.
Journal articles, not blogs or videos?
They need an accurate medical history. It's no different than asking for previous hospitalizations and/or surgeries.
They knew what IVs were?
I am IN the medical profession. If I see a person's bloodwork is going down the toilet, I will, in a HEARTBEAT, recommend blood transfusions. The ONLY way to get the blood cell counts back up is to give BLOOD PRODUCTS. If you are dying, we don't have time to wait for your femur to make some.
And for how awesome you think normal saline is, there is this article
And normal saline can cost up to about 800/liter. For something that only costs PENNIES to make, really. Who is shafting whom?
If the typing is done correctly, this is almost NEVER an issue. You realize we have TESTS to make sure the blood types are a match, right? We don't just go putting random blood into people.
If it weren't, you wouldn't be trying to sell this as an objective scientific fact.
Anyway, from this site,
(emphasis added by me)
(emphasis added by me)
Here's a list of statistics for you
From that site:
A company heavily edited Planned Parenthood vidoes to make them sound way more evil than what actually happened and people have been MURDERED for lies! Anti-vax people are the cause of the return of preventable diseases and they got information from "natural medicine" shills with no medical or psychological experience! Anti-medical folks claim Jesus will save their kids and those kids DIE! Spreading false information directly and indirectly causes harm, including death.
So your denomination is basing all of their policies on "I don't have any stats"?
Getting too much OXYGEN is harmful in certain clinical situations (people with COPD, for instance). Do we ban AIR?
I have only seen one negative reaction during a transfusion, and it wasn't because of the transfusion, but because a newbie nurse didn't feed a patient after giving insulin thinking the food would "interact" with the transfusion.
His job is to knock you out, not tell anyone about the pros and cons of blood transfusions. You need a hemotologist, not someone who gives you laughing gas.
Do you know WHY we have "pediatric doses" for kids? Do you know WHY we feel some treatments are okay for adults but not for kids? You admit your denomination does not study this information and yet risks the lives of many over willful ignorance.
Would you ask an electrician to fix your plumbing?
Do you see anything about blood transfusions listed in this specialization?
Not ignoring, just overwhelmed with too many replies. Hopefully the points that Jo raises will be addressed in other posts.
No offense intended.
If you watched the video in the OP you will see what happens when blood is administered compared to how the body responds when volume expanders are used. The evidence is very compelling. The very opposite occurs to what was believed to take place. They have never had this kind of evidence before and old habits die hard.
Like I said, it is a strongly entrenched procedure....it is not going to lie down quickly. Doctors can be stubborn about things they have done for decades, only to be told that they were doing more harm than good in the majority of cases.
They also need to know about adverse reactions to blood in the past and also if there is a risk that you have contracted something from a previous transfusion.
No, because to "abstain" covers all modes of administration. If an alcoholic is told to "abstain" from alcohol, can he inject it directly into his blood stream and still obey the doctor's orders?
That used to be the case...but that thinking is no longer valid....as the video demonstrates very strongly. The whole medical profession needs to turn around on this issue. That is what a "paradigm shift" is. The evidence for change is compelling and urgent according to these specialists in the field.
There is a whole lot of 'shafting' going on...ill health is big business...why do you think they don't want to change anything?
Saline is at least NOT harmful. Is it just co-incidence that the human circulatory system is compatible with common sea water? They actually used sea water in WW2 as a substitute for blood when supply was outstripped by demand. Men recovered.
Now you are making me question your credentials. Not a theater nurse then, are you? I believe that the anesthetist is the one who administers blood whilst keeping tabs on the patients' vitals during surgery. It is not a laughing gas event we are discussing.
This is a strawman argument. We aren't talking about dosage...we are talking about the harmful effects of transfusions generally. If almost 90% of transfusions are administered unnecessarily, then the same stats must apply to children.
"Do anesthesiologists administer blood transfusions?
Anesthesiologists administer approximately half the blood transfusions in the United States and are experts in making the risk and benefit assessments needed during a transfusion. Anesthesiologists are committed to the responsible use of the blood supply and to make the best decisions for patients."
http://asahq.org/lifeline/faqs/anesthesia experience
Not exactly plumbers, are they?
What alternatives to blood transfusion is offered by the medical profession? There are many and JW's have probably used them all and recovered well with no complications.
https://www.openanesthesia.org/refusal_of_blood_transfusion/
Our own experiences support our assertions. Why do people assume that a transfusion will save a life? When there was no alternative offered, people will assume that the transfusion saved or prolonged their life, when they would in all probability have done quite well and with less risk with non blood alternatives. .
What decisions in this issue are not "heavily influenced" by someone? Seriously.
The disfellowshipping aspect has nothing to do with our decisions because if that was the reason for refusing blood, then we have no foundation for our belief in the fist place, and no faith in God's word either. Those young people had a close relationship with their God and demonstrated that by their well reasoned responses. They were no coerced but fully cognizant of the issue they faced.....more bravely than most I would venture.
We do not take things lightly, nor do we make rash decisions about anything. We study the scriptures to ascertain what God's will is on any matter. Allowing organ transplantation to be a personal decision, acknowledges that some may have a conscience that allows this procedure...others may not. We do not judge each other on conscience decisions.
We also have no desire to break God's law to preserve this present life as if it were the important one. Our everlasting life is in the balance if we deliberately break God's law to save our life. We are all going to die from some cause anyway, so what is the fuss all about? We cannot even say whether we will be alive tomorrow.....all we have is the present. The decisions we make must not conflict with our conscience or we have already broken God's law. A bad conscience is not a good companion.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You do realize you're arguing against people who have went to school for such things, right? People who have been trained and educated in the field and have degrees in medicine, but you're trying to say you know more than they do?
It's the fact that people who need blood as so very easy to save, to the point that to not give them blood is just to let them die needlessly. There are risks involved with any medical treatment, but that doesn't mean treatment should not be administered. At the core of any and every medical treatment is the question of do the benefits outweigh the risks? When someone needs blood, the benefits pretty much always outweigh the risks, because to not administer treatment means someone is going to needlessly die when they could have been so easily saved. And these expanders you keep talking about are only suitable when the patient is not critical and does not need blood. Once you have lost so much blood, without more, you die. No ifs, ands, or buts about about it.
And how funny that when I type in "blood transfusion alternatives" in Google to look into it, the very first thing that pops up is the JW's website, and then it's the American Cancer Society saying expanders are only suitable if the patient does not need blood, then a British site saying expanders can be used in conjunction with blood to reduce the amount of blood needed, it also talks about patients having their blood drawn ahead of time to have it put in them should it be needed during surgery - called autologous blood transfusions which it lists as the number 1 alternative to traditional transfusions. Like it or not, until we learn how to create synthetic blood, blood transfusions are here to stay because it has proven itself over the years and decades to be a simple life-saving treatment that prevents many needless deaths.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...nd-transfusion-blood-transfusion-alternatives
Blood substitutes
So far, there is no real substitute for human blood. But researchers are working to develop a liquid that can carry oxygen and replace blood, at least for a short time, in certain situations.
Some products being tested can do some of the work of red blood cells, such as carrying oxygen to tissues, but cannot replace the many functions of human blood. No blood substitute has been approved by the FDA as of 2013.
Blood substitutes
So far, there is no real substitute for human blood. But researchers are working to develop a liquid that can carry oxygen and replace blood, at least for a short time, in certain situations.
Some products being tested can do some of the work of red blood cells, such as carrying oxygen to tissues, but cannot replace the many functions of human blood. No blood substitute has been approved by the FDA as of 2013.