b4mbi Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Can't believe an article I just read in the Times. A 22 year old Jehovahs Witness (JW) woman died giving birth to twins as a result of major haemorrhaging following complications at birth. She didn't sign the blood tranfusion consent form, and her families refused to override her wishes when the complications arose. Result - Motherless twins & grieving families. So much do JW's place on the value of life, what a great faith to have... I am quite disgusted and appalled at this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Faith > Reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Can't believe an article I just read in the Times. A 22 year old Jehovahs Witness (JW) woman died giving birth to twins as a result of major haemorrhaging following complications at birth. She didn't sign the blood tranfusion consent form, and her families refused to override her wishes when the complications arose. Result - Motherless twins & grieving families. So much do JW's place on the value of life, what a great faith to have... I am quite disgusted and appalled at this story. It must be a peculiar form of greiving for the families when they knew they could possibly have saved her by overriding her wishes, and by not doing so left two children motherless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 God wanted her to die, because he hates Jehovas witnesses too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 Yeah, they keep turning up and annoying St. Peter on his doorstep too, apparently..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Thats what happens when you have a religion...crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I wouldn't worry about them too much, I'm sure they'll receive the same upbringing that she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusAurelius Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Can't believe an article I just read in the Times. A 22 year old Jehovahs Witness (JW) woman died giving birth to twins as a result of major haemorrhaging following complications at birth. She didn't sign the blood tranfusion consent form, and her families refused to override her wishes when the complications arose. Why should sign a form that goes against her beliefs and could also potentialy kill her !! Result - Motherless twins & grieving families. So much do JW's place on the value of life, what a great faith to have... I am quite disgusted and appalled at this story. Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed place a great value on life , for instance they don't go to war because they refuse under any circumstances to kill a fellow human. I wonder how many people have died BECAUSE of taking a blood transfusion. "There is a movement that, for a lot of us, started as part of caring for Jehovah's Witnesses and learning about blood conservation and management,'' said Ford, who also is president-elect of the Society for the Advancement of Blood Management, a Wisconsin-based advocacy group. The group said that the number of bloodless medicine programs nationwide has risen from 100 to about 120 in the past six years. The American College of Surgeons, a division of the American Medical Association, said it does not keep statistics on bloodless surgery. "Transfusions are like getting a transplant; they can be risky and should be a last resort,'' Ford said. "Frankly, all of the things we use are available to every hospital. ... The hope is that every hospital will do this eventually.'' You see look at that , bloodless surgery on the increase in the US and in the UK many of the top surgeons refuse blood because it is difficult to screen blood for so many lethal diseases. Now to this specific problem.I have first hand experience of this because my wife haemorraged (sp) very badly with our first son. Now how was this life threatening event handled by the consultant and midwife.Did they say "take this blood or prepare to die ?" No they didn't !! They calmly and professionally administered a solution called Saline. What Saline does , is it expands what blood you have running through your veins ( ie 5 pints ) back into 8 pints. In this day and age , nobody needs to die due to not taking blood as there are all sorts of alternatives to just giving them a potentially lethal transfusion. Quote from NY Times An elderly man who was given the wrong blood during a transfusion a few months ago and who subsequently fell into a coma died today, a relative said. The man, Raymond Gaudreau, 79, died around 6 A.M. at Albany Medical Center Hospital, where the transfusion mistake occurred, said his nephew, Ronald Asselin. Mr. Gaudreau, of Cohoes, was originally hospitalized after having quadruple bypass surgery. He was recovering from the operation when he was given the wrong blood in a mix-up during a transfusion on Nov. 3. From The New Scientist A British man has died from variant CJD after receiving a blood transfusion seven years earlier from a donor who also later died from the disease. The UK secretary of state for health announced the case in an emergency statement to parliament on Wednesday. The case may be the first in the world where the human form of BSE - mad cow disease - has been transmitted via a blood transfusion. But John Reid told the House of Commons: "This is a possibility not a proven causal connection." Both individuals might have acquired the devastating illness separately by eating BSE-infected meat, he says, but "the possibility of this being transfusion-related cannot be discounted". The recipient of the blood transfusion had received the blood in 1996 from a donor with no sign of vCJD. But the donor developed VCJD symptoms and died in 1999. The recipient became ill six and a half years after the transfusion and died in autumn 2003. Fifteen other people in the UK are now known to have received blood from donors who subsequently developed vCJD, according to the UK National Blood Service. These individuals are now being contacted and will be offered advice from expert counsellors. No test "There is as yet no blood test for vCJD, or for that matter BSE, let alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms develop," said Reid. "So, there is no way yet of screening blood donations for the presence of the CJD group of diseases." However, he noted that the UK Government had put measures in place from 1997 to try to reduce the risk of person-to-person transmission of vCJD via blood transfusions. First, blood stocks from donors who later developed vCJD were destroyed. In July 1998, a programme to remove the white blood cells from blood destined for transfusion began. White blood cells were considered to be a possible source of infection. Finally, from the end of 1999, all plasma used for blood products has been sourced from the US rather than the UK. However, 15 people have received blood from donors who subsequently developed vCJD. Five of these received the "leuco-depleted" blood - stripped of its white blood cells. But "many more patients of course will have received plasma products before plasma was sourced from the US," cautioned Reid. No doubt some of you will pick holes in this last one saying , its not proven blah blah blah etc.. but this is the point , because there are so many things in blood that is donated that are not screened for , you just don't know what it is you may be injecting in your veins. I don't know the full ins and outs of this poor woman and her families case , but I have personally known people who have had blood counts as low as 3 and still come out of it alive without blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueberrypocket548 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 And I'm not sure...But from what I gather. As Jehovah witnesses they believe that receiving these medical treatments they are saying to God that they are in charge of their life, when they live and die. Whereas if they just let things happen naturally they are saying it is God's will. I'm not sure on that, but think thats how it is. Either way,whatever reason..it's what they actually believe in. They believe they are doing the right thing. Just because you cannot understand it or find the reason behind it, does not mean they are idiots. I'm sure something like this would still be heartbreaking for anyone. There is no need to insult them on such a sensitive tragic story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusAurelius Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 And I'm not sure...But from what I gather. As Jehovah witnesses they believe that receiving these medical treatments they are saying to God that they are in charge of their life, when they live and die. Whereas if they just let things happen naturally they are saying it is God's will. I'm not sure on that, but think thats how it is. Either way,whatever reason..it's what they actually believe in. They believe they are doing the right thing. Just because you cannot understand it or find the reason behind it, does not mean they are idiots. I'm sure something like this would still be heartbreaking for anyone. There is no need to insult them on such a sensitive tragic story. At least you have tried to be sympathetic.Its every witness parents nightmare that one day some consultant says to them that unless their child takes blood they will die.In most caes the child gets made a ward of court and a transfusion gets forced upon them when its a critical situation. The scriptures ( thats what Jehovahs Witnesses base their beliefs on ) says very clearly in Acts 15 that we are to abstain from blood.Its very clear and unambiguous.To say they didnt use blood like that back 2000 years ago is wrong , because Roman Physicians use to prescribe blood as a remedy for virtually everything. It is a very tragic and sad event , and I do feel for the man and his little boy and girl but I can't help but think that maybe the newspapers don't help with the way they present information , as all they are concerned about really is sensational headlines and selling newspapers.They won't have gone into any depth about the treatment this woman will have received and will just stick the blood label on it because its easy and because it sensationalises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I think the point being though... that she could have lived.. but her belief's caused her to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusAurelius Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I think the point being though... that she could have lived.. but her belief's caused her to die. You were there where you ? You know what happened do you ? No thought not !! You are a medical expert on alternatives to blood are you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The scriptures ( thats what Jehovahs Witnesses base their beliefs on ) says very clearly in Acts 15 that we are to abstain from blood. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. King James Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. new International Version Yes.... very clearly. It says to 'abstain from blood'. Does that mean abstain from drinking it? eating it in meat? I'm sure you are very careful not to taste a drop of blood? Cook that meat until it's dry. But when it comes to an issue over someone's life... it is very clear that you should let that person die... rather than give them the blood that they need to live. That's very clear yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 You were there where you ? You know what happened do you ? No thought not !! You are a medical expert on alternatives to blood are you ? Not that I want to spoil the potential show of you two God botherers in opposing camps arguing viciously, but can't those questions equally be turned around on you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.