Did they die?
Please may we see the editorial about these children?
I wouldn't ask but your agenda is so distorted that I absolutely would need to know their names, and the outcome of their illnesses, and if they dies, what was the cause of death.
From memory (it was back in 1994) these children had terminal conditions (like leukemia) and blood transfusions were routinely administered to patients, not to save their lives but to prolong them marginally in association with chemotherapy. All of the children in that article went before a judge and personally testified to their own conviction that consuming blood was against the law of God and that it was their personal conviction to refuse that therapy.
They had no fear of death because each of them knew that there was nothing medically that could be done to save them. More treatments that made them sicker and only prolonged their suffering was not something they, or their parents wanted to endure. Adults can make those determinations for themselves, but children are at the mercy of the medical system.
What the poster failed to determine is that the children of Jehovah's Witnesses are legally taken out of their care if medical authorities deem that a certain treatment is in the best interests of minor patients. Legally forced treatments can then be administered against the parent's wishes and indeed against the child's express wishes.
One of the young girls testified that administering a blood transfusion against her will was virtually the same as rape.
In each case the judge deemed that the child was sincere in their own conscientious beliefs and could stand before him and express those beliefs without their parents being present. The children all died because their conditions were terminal, not because they refused a transfusion.
A little more information and a lot less prejudice would make people take notice of what many in the medical profession already know....blood is tantamount to a liquid organ transplant. As with any foreign substance administered to a body, it throws the immune system into immediate action to fight off the invader. Blood is not a drug.....it is living tissue that is going to interact with other living tissue in a foreign body. Our immune system is the only thing between us and death and transfusion has the immune system fighting the foreign invader rather than helping fight the disease.
Blind prejudice is never a good platform from which to launch an attack. Misinformation is what is being disseminated here.
What people also fail to consider is the financial interests of the blood industry. It is a multi-million dollar cash cow which its administrators are not in a hurry to lose. Propaganda makes sure that people's fears are put to rest despite the medical authorities stating that there is 'increased morbidity and mortality attached to blood transfusion medicine than any other procedure'.
If you were offered a procedure that had increased morbidity (made patients' conditions worse) and mortality (death) how could anyone choose it without being deceived as to a likely outcome.
Please watch this video from the National Blood Authority in Australia. (link below) See what happens when a blood transfusion is administered as opposed to when a saline solution is used as a volume expander.
Listen to what these clinicians have to say who are experts in their field. How anyone can say that blood transfusions are safe is beyond me. The medical establishment has this under the banner of "still saving lives" and yet the information in the video says the opposite. I wonder why? To any logical thinking person, the risks far outweigh the benefits as these doctors clearly state.
For Media | National Blood Authority
Thank you again OB for defending us as brilliantly as you do. It is rare to find someone who has no malice towards someone just because you disagree with them or their beliefs.
