Now I'm curious (JW) Deal breaker

[Subduction Zone]

i know of a baby that was killed by the forcing blood into that baby . more blood was forced in than a baby can hold .

Citation needed.

The odds are higher that the witnesses of the event did not understand what happened. That is fairly common when it comes to complex issues.

 

[Deeje]

Couple examples:
Family of Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing blood transfusion can't keep suing doctors
Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment
Childhood leukemia is basically a death sentence for JW children because plasma and platelets won't cut it.

I'm surprised that you would offer these as any kind of evidence against JW's, ADA. We will not accept platelets or plasma...two of the four primary components of blood. We will accept plasma volume expanders....ordinary saline, which keeps the blood volume up so that the veins do not collapse and the bone marrow can make up the red cells quite readily, especially with the addition of EPO. In the case of leukemia patients, the body cannot replenish the red cells.

The young boy was dying of a terminal illness and rather than undergo more suffering, he decided to forego treatment because, 1) it was going against God's law, and 2) it was not going to save his life anyway. Leukemia treatment is rough on anyone, let alone children....and some decide not to keep that going. A mature minor is deemed by a judge to be completely aware of the consequences of his/her own decisions. His family situation was anything but stable and he opted for his faith, rather than to break God's law, and just endure more suffering. That took courage.
That account is a second hand media beat-up anyway....and full of inaccuracies.

And there was certainly no guarantee that the Witness woman in the first instance would have lived even if she had received a blood transfusion. People get carried away with the idea that blood transfusions are always successful...a vast number of them are not. In fact it was stated in the video I posted, (post #19) that there is no procedure with a greater risk of "morbidity" and "mortality" than blood transfusions....and that is from the experts. In all probability, she would have died regardless. But she died with a clear conscience, confident in the knowledge that death is not permanent. Why are people so afraid of death?

Breaking God's law is not an option for us. We believe that there are worse things than death...and we don't even believe in heaven or hell as opposite destinations. Breaking God's law is NEVER an option. He does not make laws for no reason.

If skewed second hand stories are what people want to believe.....let them. It won't change anything for us and we do not force our views on those who choose differently.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm surprised that you would offer these as any kind of evidence against JW's, ADA. We will not accept platelets or plasma...two of the four primary components of blood. We will accept plasma volume expanders....ordinary saline, which keeps the blood volume up so that the veins do not collapse and the bone marrow can make up the red cells quite readily, especially with the addition of EPO. In the case of leukemia patients, the body cannot replenish the red cells.

The young boy was dying of a terminal illness and rather than undergo more suffering, he decided to forego treatment because, 1) it was going against God's law, and 2) it was not going to save his life anyway. Leukemia treatment is rough on anyone, let alone children....and some decide not to keep that going. A mature minor is deemed by a judge to be completely aware of the consequences of his/her own decisions. His family situation was anything but stable and he opted for his faith, rather than to break God's law, and just endure more suffering. That took courage.
That account is a second hand media beat-up anyway....and full of inaccuracies.

And there was certainly no guarantee that the Witness woman in the first instance would have lived even if she had received a blood transfusion. People get carried away with the idea that blood transfusions are always successful...a vast number of them are not. In fact it was stated in the video I posted, (post #19) that there is no procedure with a greater risk of "morbidity" and "mortality" than blood transfusions....and that is from the experts. In all probability, she would have died regardless. But she died with a clear conscience, confident in the knowledge that death is not permanent. Why are people so afraid of death?

Breaking God's law is not an option for us. We believe that there are worse things than death...and we don't even believe in heaven or hell as opposite destinations. Breaking God's law is NEVER an option. He does not make laws for no reason.

If skewed second hand stories are what people want to believe.....let them. It won't change anything for us and we do not force our views on those who choose differently.

Not interested in rehashing old JW apologetics territory. I've already been there and it wasn't convincing the first or fifteenth time. Take the medical conspiracy theory to the scientologists who believe ssri and psychiatric intervention is more deadly then helpful. Maybe the two patties of BS will mingle in to a patty sandwich.

 

[Heyo]

What other countries?

Germany, Denmark and iirc GB.

I got the impression that religious morals can't be separated from one's life. So, in America we have more individualism and frown on religious who makes decisions on behalf of someone else child or not. JW are probably a minority who thinks this way but most people are most likely would side for their child with the support of their religion rather than in spite of it.

I wouldn't say that the US has more individualism but more of a slave owner mentality. For us, a child is a member of society and society is responsible for protecting children's rights. In the US a child is not an individual but the possession of her parents and the parents have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children even if they lead to the death of the child (and that was absolutely predictable).
In other words, we put more emphasis on the rights of the children while the US puts more weight on the rights of the children's "owners".

Many countries doesn't have that individualism that Americans (and Westerners, I guess) have. Which countries see their children as individuals so far that children's responsibilities as adults aren't tied to the wants and needs of their ethics and elders?

I don't know the details off the top of my head but I'd wager that in all EU countries there's more protection of individual rights of children (vs. rights of parents) than in the US.

 

[Heyo]

I am pretty tired of this topic TBH. Blood transfusions are no longer an issue for JW's.

I agree on the specifics but I guess that wasn't the question @Unveiled Artist wanted to ask. She specified "no other option" - which is a hypothetical that would be very, very rare in today's medicine.
My interpretation is therefore: "Would you kill (or let die) your child for your religion (like Abraham allegedly did)?"

And I like to add a completely other question: "Are you relieved when the decision is taken out of your hands?" I guess Abraham was. And I guess most JW would be. They can "eat their cake and have it, too". They didn't decide to have a forbidden procedure performed but their child lives because someone else made the decision.

Lets put this to bed already....

As soon as no children get sacrificed to imaginary, murderous, supreme beings.

 

[Vee]

I've been thinking about this for a quick bit after debating on another thread. I wish answers were pretty quick but I wanted to know....

If (a big IF) a JW had a child in the hospital and there are no other treatments other than blood transfusions, will they let their child die because of their morals?

I know there are exclusions and I know JW parents care for their children. In the general sense, where does one's religious morals stand at the expense of a loved ones life. When Abraham gave up his child to sacrifice, it didn't mean he didn't care for his child (again, assuming that he did), it just meant his obedience to his lord was more important than his child's life.

What would you do (second question) if you were presented with a deal breaker between your child and your faith (your child or god)?

(Mind you, in this scenario-if you choose to take it up-implies you do not know where your child will go/if he goes anywhere after you made a decision)

I don't have children, but if I had, having to make that choice would be the scariest thing I would have to do. No one wants their child to die.
If the child is old enough to understand what's going on, they should have a say. If the child is too young it's more complicated. I know a few people who had to deal with that and the doctors were able to find alternative treatments and everything worked out great. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in France when there is no consensus between the family of a minor and the doctors, ultimately the court makes the decision based on the child's best interest.
I think in any medical treatment, regardless of religious beliefs, people need to look at all the details. Sometimes the most common/obvious treatment is not the best. Why not look into other options before making a decision?
For example, several complicated surgeries have been done without blood, with great results and a faster recovery time than the same surgery using blood. I also know people who have been doing cancer treatments in tandem with a specific diet and that resulted in the tumor shrinking without a need for surgery. These are just little things that come to mind, but when it comes to medicine, it doesn't always have to be one or the other. Sometimes there are several possibilities and most doctors are open to dialogue.

 

[capumetu]

I've been thinking about this for a quick bit after debating on another thread. I wish answers were pretty quick but I wanted to know....

If (a big IF) a JW had a child in the hospital and there are no other treatments other than blood transfusions, will they let their child die because of their morals?

I know there are exclusions and I know JW parents care for their children. In the general sense, where does one's religious morals stand at the expense of a loved ones life. When Abraham gave up his child to sacrifice, it didn't mean he didn't care for his child (again, assuming that he did), it just meant his obedience to his lord was more important than his child's life.

What would you do (second question) if you were presented with a deal breaker between your child and your faith (your child or god)?

(Mind you, in this scenario-if you choose to take it up-implies you do not know where your child will go/if he goes anywhere after you made a decision)

Really there is no choice sir, the governing body in the first century laid this inspired command upon us recorded in the Bible at Acts 15:28,29 which reads:  . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

We fully realize that to date death comes to all, no one has ever lived forever, and perhaps blood could save that life temporarily, and if God chooses He too can save that life without blood, but it is only temporary. Jehovah's witnesses accept that, as in all honesty as being a fact of life, however, we also accept that those obedient to God's will can receive everlasting life, what we believe is the real life. Sure if we thought this life is all there is, we too might do all we could to preserve our lives now, with no regard for the future. It is out of love for our God as well as for our child, with which we would miss terribly if they died, that we obey the command to abstain from blood.

Keep in mind as well that taking that blood does not guarantee life, but as the verse finished Good health to you! We believe God knows better than we, and many things have came to light about blood transfusions in recent history. You do realize that because of us there are many alternatives practiced today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Off point (I know) but thousands and thousands of patients have died on UK hospitals because of contaminated blood, but I can't remember when any JW has died for a refusal of blood.

One recent example:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...od-transfusion-death-quebec-coroner-1.4401101

I might go looking, but I've done that before.

Plasma saves most cases I think.

Plasma is also forbidden by JW doctrine, from what I gather.

But there's something else that likely saves many Jehovah's Witnesses: blood transfusions.

I have no doubt that many JWs, when confronted with the choice between killing their child or themselves, or breaking the rules of their religion, break the rules and accept the transfusion, then keep this fact secret to the rest of the congregation.

Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy

To the rest of the congregation, this becomes another story of how a Witness with some serious health issue that normally requires blood managed to come through fine "without" it.

 

[oldbadger]

One recent example:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...od-transfusion-death-quebec-coroner-1.4401101


Plasma is also forbidden by JW doctrine, from what I gather.

But there's something else that likely saves many Jehovah's Witnesses: blood transfusions.

I have no doubt that many JWs, when confronted with the choice between killing their child or themselves, or breaking the rules of their religion, break the rules and accept the transfusion, then keep this fact secret to the rest of the congregation.

Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy

To the rest of the congregation, this becomes another story of how a Witness with some serious health issue that normally requires blood managed to come through fine "without" it.

I see that you found a couple of examples in the last few years.

Do you know how many lives have been lost because of blood transfusions in a similar period of time?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Really there is no choice sir, the governing body in the first century laid this inspired command upon us recorded in the Bible at Acts 15:28,29 which reads:  . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

We fully realize that to date death comes to all, no one has ever lived forever, and perhaps blood could save that life temporarily, and if God chooses He too can save that life without blood, but it is only temporary. Jehovah's witnesses accept that, as in all honesty as being a fact of life, however, we also accept that those obedient to God's will can receive everlasting life, what we believe is the real life. Sure if we thought this life is all there is, we too might do all we could to preserve our lives now, with no regard for the future. It is out of love for our God as well as for our child, with which we would miss terribly if they died, that we obey the command to abstain from blood.

Keep in mind as well that taking that blood does not guarantee life, but as the verse finished Good health to you! We believe God knows better than we, and many things have came to light about blood transfusions in recent history. You do realize that because of us there are many alternatives practiced today.

No treatment is guaranteed. The question is about JW morals. Would they let their child die if there were no other treatment available?

I know factually there are other more successful treatments. Though, it is concerning where one's faith lies in reference to a loved ones life. I compared it to Abraham and Isaac. So, alternative medical treatments in his day wouldn't have been an option and the same applies to this question. Assuming JW follow the bible, I'd assume there wouldn't be "buts" involved?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see that you found a couple of examples in the last few years.

The website What's the Harm? has more (and seems to be up and running again). They're user-submitted, so keep in mind that that list isn't - and isn't intended to be - systematic or exhaustive.

What's the harm in Jehovah's Witnesses?

Do you know how many lives have been lost because of blood transfusions in a similar period of time?

Those two cases I gave were from Canada in 2017. My googling can't find any cases of anyone in Canada dying from a blood transfusion in 2017.

I can't find overall stats for Canada, but the US (which I don't believe has as the safety measures for blood donation that Canada does) in 2017 apparently had about 1 fatality for every 459,000 transfusions.

In comparison, just considering those two deaths, Jehovah's Witness doctrine killed about 1 in 58,000 active JW members in Canada in 2017.

 

[oldbadger]

The website What's the Harm? has more (and seems to be up and running again). They're user-submitted, so keep in mind that that list isn't - and isn't intended to be - systematic or exhaustive.

What's the harm in Jehovah's Witnesses?


Those two cases I gave were from Canada in 2017. My googling can't find any cases of anyone in Canada dying from a blood transfusion in 2017.

I can't find overall stats for Canada, but the US (which I don't believe has as the safety measures for blood donation that Canada does) in 2017 apparently had about 1 fatality for every 459,000 transfusions.

In comparison, just considering those two deaths, Jehovah's Witness doctrine killed about 1 in 58,000 active JW members in Canada in 2017.

Fair enough.
In the UK we have lost thousands and thousands to blood transfusions.

I will look further back on this thread and then edit to add a British nurse members's name for a source.

Edit: @Sandra Jayne post 8 and another post further down.
Some deaths were because of contaminated blood, others for reasons explained by Sandra.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough.
On the UK we have lost thousands and thousands to blood transfusions.

I will look further back on this thread and then edit to add a British nurse members's name for a source.

So what? You are relying on bad reasoning. Yes many people still die with blood transfusions. That does not mean that "we have lost thousands and thousand to blood transfusions." That is an incorrect conclusion. You lost thousands and thousands regardless of the fact that they got blood transfusions. It is hard to say exactly how many people are saved by blood transfusions since it is possible that some would have survived without them. But there are countless clear cases where people have survived where they would not have without blood transfusions. Many operations are not possible without them. The JW dogma kills its own member unnecessarily and cruelly at times.

 

[oldbadger]

So what? You are relying on bad reasoning. Yes many people still die with blood transfusions. That does not mean that "we have lost thousands and thousand to blood transfusions." That is an incorrect conclusion. You lost thousands and thousands regardless of the fact that they got blood transfusions. It is hard to say exactly how many people are saved by blood transfusions since it is possible that some would have survived without them. But there are countless clear cases where people have survived where they would not have without blood transfusions. Many operations are not possible without them. The JW dogma kills its own member unnecessarily and cruelly at times.

Which operations are not possible without blood transfusions?
You write as if I would refuse my wife a transfusion. You're wrong, is all.

People do die because of decisions I'm sad to say.

But anyway, can you name those operations?

 

[oldbadger]

So what? You are relying on bad reasoning. Yes many people still die with blood transfusions. That does not mean that "we have lost thousands and thousand to blood transfusions." That is an incorrect conclusion.

Google.
What is the contaminated blood scandal?
BBC News article.

3000 dead. Up to 30,000 contaminated.

I am on a mobile so you would need to go thru Google. I will link you when next in computer.

 

[oldbadger]

So what? You are relying on bad reasoning. Yes many people still die with blood transfusions. That does not mean that "we have lost thousands and thousand to blood transfusions." That is an incorrect conclusion. You lost thousands and thousands regardless of the fact that they got blood transfusions.

OK......
This also for @9-10ths_Penguin and all others who doubt just how many have died thru blood transfusions and the numbers are going to be huge, I think.

Now I debate with JWs about all kinds of questions, just ask members like @Deeje
if I can be a right bore about some things. But there has to be balance and distancing from agendas on questions like this one.

Thing is.......... a lot of infected blood came from the USA where it can be sold, and the links show where some of this infected blood was coming from, yet there are few reports of blood contamination coming out of the States that I can find. So I don't believe that the USA has been free of this problem either.

So far I have heard of tgwo JW deaths. Now all we have to do is find a few thousand, eh?..... because I just wonder how many JW lives might have been saved by refusal in preference for, say, plasma or other operation techniques?

Go digging! Dig hard!

Here are just some....

Pick a country.....


What is the contaminated blood scandal? - BBC Newswww.bbc.co.uk › news › health-48596605
14 Jun 2019 — How did it happen? The UK was struggling to keep up with demand for the Factor VIII blood clotting treatment, so supplies began to be imported from the US. But much of the human blood plasma used to make it came from donors such as prison inmates and drug-users, who sold their blood.
-----------------------
The Lindsay Tribunal was set up in Ireland in 1999 to investigate the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood products supplied by the Blood Transfusion Service Board. There are about 400 haemophiliacs in Ireland.
Lindsay Tribunal - Wikipedia
------------------------

Canadian Red Cross apologises for distributing HIV infected ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC558319
Canadian Red Cross apologises for distributing HIV infected blood ... Cross has apologised for what has been termed Canada's worst public health scandal, ... Red Cross's former director of blood transfusions, three other doctors, and the New ...
by D Spurgeon · ‎2005 · ‎Cited by 1 · ‎Related articles

Canada's Tainted Blood Disaster - CBC Archives - CBC.cawww.cbc.ca › archives › topic › canadas-tainted-blood-...
Criminal charges in tainted blood scandal ... Canada's blood supply became contaminated by HIV and hepatitis due to systematic failure, says a government ... There's evidence that two recent AIDS deaths may be linked to blood transfusions.
------------------------

Infected blood scandal (France) - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Infected_blood_scandal_(Fra...
... (central national de transfusion sanguine), however, was sentenced a four year prison; and became known as the symbol of Blood Scandal among the French ...

Ex-ministers to face trial in French "blood scandal" - NCBI - NIHwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC1174664
Ex-ministers to face trial in French "blood scandal" ... the neglect of a memorandum on how to prevent contamination by blood transfusion, for more than a year; ...
-------------------

Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Pri...
Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal was screened at Slamdance 2005 ... In the United States, lawyers have won settlements for 8,000 US haemophilia ... tainted transfusions spreading HIV, hep C". San Francisco Chronicle. USA.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here's an addition to the OP I gave capumetu

I know factually there are other more successful treatments. Though, it is concerning where one's faith lies in reference to a loved ones life. I compared it to Abraham and Isaac. So, alternative medical treatments in his day wouldn't have been an option and the same applies to this question. Assuming JW follow the bible, I'd assume there wouldn't be "buts" involved?

It's specific to the deal breaker between saving a loved ones life and following one's religious morals without alternatives that would excuse one or change the goal post from the question asked.

 

[Deeje]

I agree on the specifics but I guess that wasn't the question @Unveiled Artist wanted to ask. She specified "no other option" - which is a hypothetical that would be very, very rare in today's medicine.
My interpretation is therefore: "Would you kill (or let die) your child for your religion (like Abraham allegedly did)?"

In our view, to break God's law in order to preserve your life, is to die whilst still living. Spiritual death is far worse for us than physical death. It means that a person has no hope of a place in God's Kingdom....it is eternal death....removal from existence completely.

So Abraham's experience is in the Bible for a reason....and in Hebrews Paul tells us of Abraham's reasoning.
Hebrews 11:17-19....
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way."

It wasn't blind faith that led Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son, he reasoned on the hope of the resurrection. All of God's promises were to be fulfilled in Isaac, so Abraham figured that God had his reasons for asking him to do the unthinkable, and that he would bring him back to life so that his promises could be kept. We have to have that kind of faith.....the kind that knows no fear.

Hebrews 10:38-39....
"But my righteous one will live by reason of faith,” and “if he shrinks back, I have no pleasure in him.” 39 Now we are not the sort who shrink back to destruction, but the sort who have faith for the preserving of our lives."

It is that principle upon which we base our decisions. The preserving of our lives in this instance is our everlasting lives.
Matthew 16:24-27...
"Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and keep following me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 Really, what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world but loses his life? Or what will a man give in exchange for his life? 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior."

And I like to add a completely other question: "Are you relieved when the decision is taken out of your hands?" I guess Abraham was. And I guess most JW would be. They can "eat their cake and have it, too". They didn't decide to have a forbidden procedure performed but their child lives because someone else made the decision.

Surely you must be joking.....if blood transfusions are more fraught with complications and death than any other medical procedure, what kind of idiots would we be to allow them for our children ? We will fight NOT to have blood because 1) it is God's law, and 2) because we want the best medical care for our children. It is a bitter experience and one done out of complete ignorance when judges remove our children from our care as if they know better than we do what is best for them. Thankfully, many doctors these days are better informed and can treat us and our children without blood. No judges need to take them from us.

As soon as no children get sacrificed to imaginary, murderous, supreme beings.

I'm not sure I can recall any being sacrificed apart from the one who was sent as a redeemer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK......
This also for @9-10ths_Penguin and all others who doubt just how many have died thru blood transfusions and the numbers are going to be huge, I think.

Think or assume?

Now I debate with JWs about all kinds of questions, just ask members like @Deeje
if I can be a right bore about some things. But there has to be balance and distancing from agendas on questions like this one.

Thing is.......... a lot of infected blood came from the USA where it can be sold, and the links show where some of this infected blood was coming from, yet there are few reports of blood contamination coming out of the States that I can find. So I don't believe that the USA has been free of this problem either.

So far I have heard of tgwo JW deaths. Now all we have to do is find a few thousand, eh?..... because I just wonder how many JW lives might have been saved by refusal in preference for, say, plasma or other operation techniques?

If you've only heard of two, then it's because you didn't click on the link I provided. It listed 15 more cases where refusing blood transfusions killed the person, and 2 more involving serious health issues.

But the reality is that a lot of blood transfusion cases involve either:

- major trauma with blood loss so severe that the victim's survival isn't certain even with blood, so when these victims die, JWs like to misrepresent these cases by pretending the death was inevitable.

- cancer care. For people with leukemia or undergoing chemotherapy, a blood transfusion can be a matter of improved quality of life or life extension. The JW anti-blood apologists like to ignore these sorts of benefits and try to keep the discussion strictly to whether the blood transfusion directly saved the patient's life or not.

Go digging! Dig hard!

Here are just some....

Pick a country.....

[...]

Canadian Red Cross apologises for distributing HIV infected ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC558319
Canadian Red Cross apologises for distributing HIV infected blood ... Cross has apologised for what has been termed Canada's worst public health scandal, ... Red Cross's former director of blood transfusions, three other doctors, and the New ...
by D Spurgeon · ‎2005 · ‎Cited by 1 · ‎Related articles

Canada's Tainted Blood Disaster - CBC Archives - CBC.cawww.cbc.ca › archives › topic › canadas-tainted-blood-...
Criminal charges in tainted blood scandal ... Canada's blood supply became contaminated by HIV and hepatitis due to systematic failure, says a government ... There's evidence that two recent AIDS deaths may be linked to blood transfusions.
------------------------

Of course, you know that a lot changed in Canada after that, right? Better screening processes were put in place, and the Canadian Red Cross no longer manages Canada's blood supply.

What's the risk now, do you think?

Or even better: how does the risk vs. benefit of blood transfusions compare to the risk vs. benefit of medical procedures that the JWs don't object to?

 

[oldbadger]

Think or assume?

If you've only heard of two, then it's because you didn't click on the link I provided. It listed 15 more cases where refusing blood transfusions killed the person, and 2 more involving serious health issues.

But the reality is that a lot of blood transfusion cases involve either:

- major trauma with blood loss so severe that the victim's survival isn't certain even with blood, so when these victims die, JWs like to misrepresent these cases by pretending the death was inevitable.

- cancer care. For people with leukemia or undergoing chemotherapy, a blood transfusion can be a matter of improved quality of life or life extension. The JW anti-blood apologists like to ignore these sorts of benefits and try to keep the discussion strictly to whether the blood transfusion directly saved the patient's life or not.

Of course, you know that a lot changed in Canada after that, right? Better screening processes were put in place, and the Canadian Red Cross no longer manages Canada's blood supply.

What's the risk now, do you think?

Or even better: how does the risk vs. benefit of blood transfusions compare to the risk vs. benefit of medical procedures that the JWs don't object to?

So you do acknowledge all those deaths, not mentioned before?

And you say you've found some more deaths of JWs, now, what do you want to do about their choice to reject transfusions of blood?
What do you want to do?