Now I'm curious (JW) Deal breaker

[Heyo]

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 ?

I didn't specify blood transfusions. Just take any procedure your governing body doesn't like and doctors would recommend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

I would think that almost any open heart surgery would not be possible. And like all science medicine has improved over the years. Blood transfusions always included a bit of risk. But they also saved many lives. Meanwhile quite a few examples of the Jehovah's Witnesses odd interpretation of the Bible killing people have been given. And did I say that you would refuse your wife a blood transfusion? Many JW's do, not all of them are that callous. It does not appear that you are. Here is a link that explains how they can get by with less blood in the system now, but sometimes transfusions are still necessary:

Blood Transfusions During Surgery - The Leone Center for Orthopedic Care

"Previously it was thought that a transfusion was necessary if hemoglobin levels dropped below 10 g / dL (grams of hemoglobin in a deciliter of a blood sample). We now have the confidence to allow hemoglobin levels to drop as low as 7 or 8 g / dL before we consider a transfusion, as long as our patient clinically is tolerating the lower level and doesn’t have any other conditions which might raise the threshold, such as coronary artery disease."

So today any surgery that results in hemoglobin dropping to 7 or 8 g/dL would require transfusions. And requesting specific surgeries may not be proper because even with the same surgeries blood loss can vary. All that I can give you is the time when they are needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Your claim, your burden of proof. The plural of anecdotes is not evidence. What is needed is to show that blood transfusions cause more deaths than they save. With millions of people requiring them all around the globe there is no doubt that one can cherry pick out cases where they failed. This is not evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

So what? Thousands lost compared to millions saved. Again, cherry picking.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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."



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.



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

Take out blood transfusions. That particular procedure is irrelevant to the point. Would a JW let their child die at the expense of keeping their commandments to god?

Abraham didn't offer better alternatives to sacrificing his child. He did what god told him to do.

If JW was placed in the same situation with their child given an unbiblical medical procedure, would they do what Abraham did without question?

Since blood transfusions are getting you, you can replace it with any unbiblical practice that may be questioned at the expense of a JW child's life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I didn't specify blood transfusions. Just take any procedure your governing body doesn't like and doctors would recommend.

You know, years ago I asked Jews here if god told them to kill all people would they. One Jew said yes. It was interesting because that type of question would have been avoided or caused some cognitive dissonance in killing innocent children and people or following god's laws. I'm wondering if it's the same with JW. Taking a loved ones life compared to following god's commandments can be a hard challenge to come across. I know many christians have lost their faith for the life and well-being of their child. I only know my co-worker to let her child die (assuming he would go to heaven) because god knows what's best and she's being obedient. While I disagree, both she and the Jew tend to have strong conviction. Whether it is moral or not, I guess only god knows. Shrugs.

 

[Deeje]

I didn't specify blood transfusions. Just take any procedure your governing body doesn't like and doctors would recommend.

Please enlighten me I don't know of any.....

 

[sojourner]

You know, years ago I asked Jews here if god told them to kill all people would they. One Jew said yes. It was interesting because that type of question would have been avoided or caused some cognitive dissonance in killing innocent children and people or following god's laws. I'm wondering if it's the same with JW. Taking a loved ones life compared to following god's commandments can be a hard challenge to come across. I know many christians have lost their faith for the life and well-being of their child. I only know my co-worker to let her child die (assuming he would go to heaven) because god knows what's best and she's being obedient. While I disagree, both she and the Jew tend to have strong conviction. Whether it is moral or not, I guess only god knows. Shrugs.

As far as I’m concerned, God — whether of Christians, Jews, JWs, or anyone else — is about life and health. If some point of doctrine or dogma bumps up against what is healthful and life-giving, God always favors the latter. Take, for example, Jesus’ teaching about saving one’s donkey on the sabbath. Doctrines and dogmas were made for people — not people for doctrines and dogmas. If a baby needs a transfusion — or other procedure — in order to have a better chance at living and quality of life, God’s for it.

 

[Heyo]

Please enlighten me I don't know of any.....

I don't know either. I only read how you defended "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."
And now you are telling me that preserving your life by "ungodly" means is a non-issue. Blood transfusion are OK when no other treatment is possible, organ transplantation, gene therapy, everything fine with the governing body?

 

[Deeje]

You know, years ago I asked Jews here if god told them to kill all people would they. One Jew said yes. It was interesting because that type of question would have been avoided or caused some cognitive dissonance in killing innocent children and people or following god's laws. I'm wondering if it's the same with JW. Taking a loved ones life compared to following god's commandments can be a hard challenge to come across. I know many christians have lost their faith for the life and well-being of their child. I only know my co-worker to let her child die (assuming he would go to heaven) because god knows what's best and she's being obedient. While I disagree, both she and the Jew tend to have strong conviction. Whether it is moral or not, I guess only god knows. Shrugs.

Why are believers judged on what you, an unbeliever would do or what you think? You have choices...so make them.
You don't know God so how can you judge what he approves of and what he doesn't?
So many of the comments on this thread are based on ignorance. It can be a terminal condition if you don't educate yourself.

Bottom line....? Does God want to save everyone? Of course he does, that is why the message is offered to all without discrimination. Will all people qualify for life in the new world to come? No they will not, because this planet belongs to God and we are merely the tenants. We have some rules to follow if we want to have our 'lease' extended indefinitely, or else the Landlord will issue an eviction notice. Will he make allowance for personal preference or will he simply enforce his clearly stated terms? He will alter his terms for no one. He is the one who determines what is done with his own property. He has plans for this earth when he demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that we can't take care of it, its creatures or each other......he will act, and that is pretty much done and dusted now unless you see mankind changing their ways any time soon?

The Kingdom will "come"...ready or not.

So, where do you see yourself in that scenario?

 

[Deeje]

I don't know either. I only read how you defended "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."
And now you are telling me that preserving your life by "ungodly" means is a non-issue. Blood transfusion are OK when no other treatment is possible, organ transplantation, gene therapy, everything fine with the governing body?

We are asked to exercise our conscience in all things. When there is specific law, we follow it....when there are principles to be applied, we apply them.

The Bible's prohibition is on blood specifically. All else is up to us.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why are believers judged on what you, an unbeliever would do or what you think? You have choices...so make them.
You don't know God so how can you judge what he approves of and what he doesn't?
So many of the comments on this thread are based on ignorance. It can be a terminal condition if you don't educate yourself.

You're shifting the goal. I'm asking whether one obeys god's commandments or save the life of their child. My personal opinion as a non-christian is irrelevant.

Judgement is irrelevant in this question.

Bottom line....? Does God want to save everyone? Of course he does, that is why the message is offered to all without discrimination. Will all people qualify for life in the new world to come? No they will not, because this planet belongs to God and we are merely the tenants. We have some rules to follow if we want to have our 'lease' extended indefinitely, or else the Landlord will issue an eviction notice. Will he make allowance for personal preference or will he simply enforce his clearly stated terms? He will alter his terms for no one. He is the one who determines what is done with his own property. He has plans for this earth when he demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that we can't take care of it, its creatures or each other......that is pretty much done and dusted now unless you see mankind changing their ways any time soon?

I don't see how this answers whether you'd obey god's rules or save your child.

Your-meaning a person's child it doesn't need to be particularly yours personally.

The Kingdom will "come"...ready or not.

So, where do you see yourself in that scenario?

I'm not JW so I can't answer my own question.

 

[oldbadger]

I would think that almost any open heart surgery would not be possible. And like all science medicine has improved over the years. Blood transfusions always included a bit of risk. But they also saved many lives. Meanwhile quite a few examples of the Jehovah's Witnesses odd interpretation of the Bible killing people have been given. And did I say that you would refuse your wife a blood transfusion? Many JW's do, not all of them are that callous. It does not appear that you are. Here is a link that explains how they can get by with less blood in the system now, but sometimes transfusions are still necessary:.

Yes...... I acknowledge that you think open heart surgery might need transfusions. Who knows?

Yes. Medicine has improved, thus reducing this situation for JWs somewhat.

No you didn't mention my wife. I did, and you just about acknowledge that.

Yes..... folks can survive with less blood today.

And 'Yes' some JWs do permit transfusions with their own blood, previously prepared:-
'However, a minority of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions, and will therefore accept transfusions. Some Jehovah’s Witnesses may also believe that it is acceptable to receive blood plasma fractions or the reinfusion of their own blood. Given the divergent beliefs about receiving blood amongst followers of the religion, it is imperative that the view of each individual Jehovah’s Witness patient on this aspect be carefully canvassed by the treating practitioner.'

Moving on to next post......

 

[oldbadger]

Your claim, your burden of proof. The plural of anecdotes is not evidence. What is needed is to show that blood transfusions cause more deaths than they save. With millions of people requiring them all around the globe there is no doubt that one can cherry pick out cases where they failed. This is not evidence for your beliefs.

No you can't decide that I have to prove lives lost are greater than lives saved, or I could easily ask you to prove that JW lives lost are a fraction of those saved by refusals. True?

Cherry picking? You've picked a few cases of JW deaths......

Moving to next post......

 

[oldbadger]

So what? Thousands lost compared to millions saved. Again, cherry picking.

And there we have it. There it is.
I have shown you thousands of deaths caused by transfusions in many countries and you have dismissed these as 'cherry picking'. Previously I think you denied them?

And at no point did you make any comment about how dreadful the circumstances of those deaths have been. Thousands of them.

Yet you are beating on about about a very very few JW deaths over many years because of their beliefs.

I think that could be evidence of a determined attack upon a minority through a fixed agenda. Basically I don't think you have shown any worries about masses of deaths by transufusion at all.... yet. But you are beelining at JWs.

Is this true? Yes? No?

Moving forward. What would you like to see happening about these JW choices? Have you got any ideas about that? By all means tell us about the thousands (caused by other situations than JWs) I have already shown you, ..... OK?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you can't decide that I have to prove lives lost are greater than lives saved, or I could easily ask you to prove that JW lives lost are a fraction of those saved by refusals. True?

Cherry picking? You've picked a few cases of JW deaths......

Moving to next post......

Let's try to think rationally. Blood transfusions are used because they have been shown to save lives. So many times over that their use is well understood. Like all medical procedures there is a risk. You are cherry picking by only looking at negative results that are guaranteed to happen when there are a large number of cases. And by dodging the burden of proof you admit that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there we have it. There it is.
I have shown you thousands of deaths caused by transfusions in many countries and you have dismissed these as 'cherry picking'. Previously I think you denied them?

And at no point did you make any comment about how dreadful the circumstances of those deaths have been. Thousands of them.

Yet you are beating on about about a very very few JW deaths over many years because of their beliefs.

I think that could be evidence of a determined attack upon a minority through a fixed agenda. Basically I don't think you have shown any worries about masses of deaths by transufusion at all.... yet. But you are beelining at JWs.

Is this true? Yes? No?

Moving forward. What would you like to see happening about these JW choices? Have you got any ideas about that? By all means tell us about the thousands (caused by other situations than JWs) I have already shown you, ..... OK?

So what? Once again, yes thousands of deaths in millions of cases. That does not help you. You are still dodging the burden of proof. You need to deal with the millions saved. And please do not make the error of referring to modern techniques that today makes blood transfusions less needed. They were needed then. The actions of the JW church were evil then and in the cases where blood transfusions are still needed it makes their actions evil today.

By the way, the reason that there are very few deaths each year from this in with JW victims is because the JW are a rather small cult. Properly speaking they are a cult and not a sect. Small numbers means a small number of times that blood transfusions are necessary.

Tell me do you let a murderer off only because he murders rarely?

 

[oldbadger]

Let's try to think rationally. Blood transfusions are used because they have been shown to save lives. So many times over that their use is well understood. Like all medical procedures there is a risk. You are cherry picking by only looking at negative results that are guaranteed to happen when there are a large number of cases. And by dodging the burden of proof you admit that you are wrong.

You don't get to judge that. Please don't try and tell me how to think, ok?
We all know that transfusions can be good. Very good.

But I look forward to reading in your very next post how shocked you are now over the evidence shown about how many thousands have been killed or messed up for life by them.

That would be rational imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't get to judge that. Please don't try and tell me how to think, ok?
We all know that transfusions can be good. Very good.

But I look forward to reading in your very next post how shocked you are now over the evidence shown about how many thousands have been killed or messed up for life by them.

That would be rational imo.

Of course I get to judge that. I can think and reason rationally. Please answer this question, why do you think that blood transfusions are used in the first place?

By the way, you are not arguing rationally. You are using cherry picking and trying to make strawman arguments. No one has claimed that blood transfusions are 100% safe so finding the relatively rare times that they do not work does not mean that they are still not a great success. I will grant that thousands, not "many thousands" have been killed or messed up by them. That does not refute the fact that millions have been saved.

 

[oldbadger]

So what? Once again, yes thousands of deaths in millions of cases. That does not help you. You are still dodging the burden of proof. You need to deal with the millions saved. And please do not make the error of referring to modern techniques that today makes blood transfusions less needed. They were needed then. The actions of the JW church were evil then and in the cases where blood transfusions are still needed it makes their actions evil today.

How wonderful!
We've got an Atheist here who believes in Evil!
Now that's a turn up for the 'unusual', if I may say so.

And you keep trying to place the goal posts just nicely for you.
One burden of proof that 'm establishing very quickly is that you didn't have a clue about the thousands killed, nor the thousands whose lives have been messed up by transfusions, and it doesn't look as if you will give a moment's thought about them. But here you are, hunting down the JW cases ....... the really 'evil' ones!

Oh dear How they give themselves up!

By the way, the reason that there are very few deaths each year from this in with JW victims is because the JW are a rather small cult. Properly speaking they are a cult and not a sect. Small numbers means a small number of times that blood transfusions are necessary.

You can turn through the 7 million JWs for your cases.
Oh I do love it so! A CULT, even.!
What I think I can show to all here is that you have a high level of prejudice against JWs.

They are an EVIL CULT according to you, an atheist!

Tell me do you let a murderer off only because he murders rarely?

And you've got that wrong as well.
You take a dreadfully poor analogy, quite irrational I think, and you even get that wrong.

The answer is YES! We do! Where I live (and next door in France) we do!
Now, since you've changed the subject, and fallen flat over on it as well, would you like me to explain just how that brings about a 'Yes' answer? It's 'Off Piste' of course, but I don't expect the OP will mind a brief answer if you ask for it.
Are you really interested? I'd be pleased to enlighten you on the above situations.
Just ask.