Jehoavh Witness's Idiocy

[MarcusAurelius]

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.

 

Oh dear who are you the local vicar ? Like I said , are you an expert in alternatives to blood ?

 

Perhaps you can comment on this

 

Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? The answer is yes.

 

Though most surgeons have claimed that they gave blood only when absolutely necessary, after the AIDS epidemic arose their use of blood dropped rapidly. An editorial in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (September 1988) said that "one of the few benefits of the epidemic" was that it "resulted in various strategies on the part of patients and physicians to avoid blood transfusion." A blood-bank official explains: "What has changed is the intensity of the message, the receptivity of clinicians to the message (because of an increased perception of risks), and the demand for consideration of alternatives." —Transfusion Medicine Reviews, October 1989.

 

Note, there are alternatives! This becomes understandable when we review why blood is transfused.

 

The hemoglobin in the red cells carries oxygen needed for good health and life. So if a person has lost a lot of blood, it might seem logical just to replace it. Normally you have about 14 or 15 grams of hemoglobin in every 100 cubic centimeters of blood. (Another measure of the concentration is hematocrit, which is commonly about 45 percent.) The accepted "rule" was to transfuse a patient before surgery if his hemoglobin was below 10 (or 30 percent hematocrit). The Swiss journal Vox Sanguinis (March 1987) reported that "65% of [anesthesiologists] required patients to have a preoperative hemoglobin of 10 gm/dl for elective surgery."

 

But at a 1988 conference on blood transfusion, Professor Howard L. Zauder asked, "How Did We Get a 'Magic Number'?" He stated clearly: "The etiology of the requirement that a patient have 10 grams of hemoglobin (Hgb) prior to receiving an anesthetic is cloaked in tradition, shrouded in obscurity, and unsubstantiated by clinical or experimental evidence." Imagine the many thousands of patients whose transfusions were triggered by an 'obscure, unsubstantiated' requirement!

 

Some might wonder, 'Why is a hemoglobin level of 14 normal if you can get by on much less?' Well, you thus have considerable reserve oxygen-carrying capacity so that you are ready for exercise or heavy work. Studies of anemic patients even reveal that "it is difficult to detect a deficit in work capacity with hemoglobin concentrations as low as 7 g/dl. Others have found evidence of only moderately impaired function." —Contemporary Transfusion Practice, 1987.

 

While adults accommodate a low hemoglobin level, what of children? Dr. James A. Stockman III says: "With few exceptions, infants born prematurely will experience a decline in hemoglobin in the first one to three months . . . The indications for transfusion in the nursery setting are not well defined. Indeed, many infants seem to tolerate remarkably low levels of hemoglobin concentration with no apparent clinical difficulties." —Pediatric Clinics of North America, February 1986.

 

 

 

"Some authors have stated that hemoglobin values as low as 2 to 2.5 gm./100ml. may be acceptable. . . . A healthy person may tolerate a 50 percent loss of red blood cell mass and be almost entirely asymptomatic if blood loss occurs over a period of time." —Techniques of Blood Transfusion, 1982.

 

Such information does not mean that nothing need be done when a person loses a lot of blood in an accident or during surgery. If the loss is rapid and great, a person's blood pressure drops, and he may go into shock. What is primarily needed is that the bleeding be stopped and the volume in his system be restored. That will serve to prevent shock and keep the remaining red cells and other components in circulation.

 

Volume replacement can be accomplished without using whole blood or blood plasma.* Various nonblood fluids are effective volume expanders. The simplest is saline (salt) solution, which is both inexpensive and compatible with our blood. There are also fluids with special properties, such as dextran, Haemaccel, and lactated Ringer's solution. Hetastarch (HES) is a newer volume expander, and "it can be safely recommended for those [burn] patients who object to blood products." (Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, January/February 1989) Such fluids have definite advantages. "Crystalloid solutions [such as normal saline and lactated Ringer's solution], Dextran and HES are relatively nontoxic and inexpensive, readily available, can be stored at room temperature, require no compatibility testing and are free of the risk of transfusion-transmitted disease." —Blood Transfusion Therapy —A Physician's Handbook, 1989.

 

You may ask, though, 'Why do nonblood replacement fluids work well, since I need red cells to get oxygen throughout my body?' As mentioned, you have oxygen-carrying reserves. If you lose blood, marvelous compensatory mechanisms start up. Your heart pumps more blood with each beat. Since the lost blood was replaced with a suitable fluid, the now diluted blood flows more easily, even in the small vessels. As a result of chemical changes, more oxygen is released to the tissues. These adaptations are so effective that if only half of your red cells remain, oxygen delivery may be about 75 percent of normal. A patient at rest uses only 25 percent of the oxygen available in his blood. And most general anesthetics reduce the body's need for oxygen.

 

You go back to reading the Sun or whatever newspaper it is you read and you base your expertise in this field on a few hundred words in a tabloid gutter rag

 

Don't suppose you drink or smoke do you and you treat your body as a temple ?

[MarcusAurelius]

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?

 

They can of course be turned on me , and whereas I cannot comment on this particular case with first hand eye witness experience I do have the very real experience of being at my wife's side whilst she lost 3 pints of blood during childbirth , watching the consultant and midwife administer Saline and the whole life threatening situation ( according to the Sun and djdan ) be averted by the skin of the teeth.

 

What about all the people that die because of having a blood transfusion , what about the consultants who recommend bloodless surgery , do their much more knowledgeable opinions count ?

[Chinahand]

If you are going to cut and paste propoganda why don't you just give us a link. Context is important!

[Mr. Sausages]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...6/nblood106.xml

 

She was anaemic, which didn't help. However, the report states that medical staff urged her and her family to give the consent for a blood transfusion. Medical staff with qualifications based on scientific research, experience, and who were actually there. Anyone who places a greater weight on scripture than their opinion is a fool.

[Gladys]

Very many years ago when I was a child, every Sunday tea time was the God spot on telly. Apart from Songs of Praise and the Jess Yates (father of Paula, kind of speaks volumes) thing, there was a series of dramas highlighting different, usually Christian, belief dilemmas. The one that stays with me is one where a young girl has a serious accident playing in some rock pools and needs a blood transfusion, but her family are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse it. Needless to say, she dies and there was discussion on the dilemma. That drama has stayed with me all these years.

 

I couldn't accept, then, that parents would refuse a simple treatment to save their child's life and, I am afraid, I cannot accept it now.

 

To put the argument on two levels:

 

Firstly, a pragmatic view: you have the knowledge, means etc. to save a life, why not use them? Refusing them is a dereliction of duty either as a parent or a medical practitioner. So what if there may be other problems in transfusing blood; on an unemotional risk analysis, the unknown and unquantified dangers of a blood transfusion have got to be a better bet than the certain danger of death without it.

 

Secondly, (and I won't be able to argue this one convincingly for obvious reasons) if your objection is religious: You have to question where this diktat originates - different times, different knowledge - and then after thinking about it surely your thoughts would be that despite the archaic scriptures, God has allowed this knowledge to save lives for a purpose, and that purpose is known only to Him, it is a gift so why reject it?

 

Well, perhaps it is to do with the reward in heaven.......

 

But we all know what that can lead to.

 

I am not religious by anyone's standards, but if I have to fall in with a religious credo it would be Christian Aid's motto from some years back ' We Believe in Life Before Death'. So true on so many levels, and not a bad sentiment for believers and non-believers alike.

[Mr. Sausages]

God has allowed this knowledge to save lives for a purpose, and that purpose is known only to Him, it is a gift so why reject it?

 

It reminds me of an old joke:

 

A very religious man lived near a river but one day the banks burst and water flooded his house. As the water level rose he climbed onto his roof. A boat came by.

"Climb aboard!", shouted the captain.

"No",said the man. "God will save me".

The water continued to rise and he climbed on his chimney.Another boat came past.

"Jump aboard", called the captain.

"No , God will save me".

The water was now up to the man's waist when suddenly a helicopter swooped down.

"Quick!",shouted the pilot. "Climb aboard".

But the man insisted that God would save him, and then drowned.

Up in heaven he asked God why he didn't save him.

God replied,"I sent 2 boats and a helicopter, what more do you want?"

[Albert Tatlock]

But it is understood her family were unhappy with the hospital because they felt Mrs Gough should have been given a Caesarean section but was left to give birth naturally.

 

Mr Gough, 24, a central heating engineer who has been left to bring up the children, said: "We are coping the best we can. There will be an inquest and issues will arise from that."

FFS! I can see it coming - they will no doubt be trying to sue the hospital. There are higher risks of blood loss during a Caesarean aren't there - so wouldn't natural birth be the best way to proceed? Plus hindsight is 20:20.

[Gladys]

To Mr S:- Exactly. Sadly, these hocus pocus beliefs aren't a joke; they are deadly serious.

[Mr. Sausages]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...6/nblood106.xml

 

She was anaemic, which didn't help. However, the report states that medical staff urged her and her family to give the consent for a blood transfusion. Medical staff with qualifications based on scientific research, experience, and who were actually there. Anyone who places a greater weight on scripture than their opinion is a fool.

 

So what of all those medical experts I have quoted are they fools too ?

 

To use your own argument, were they there? No. The medical experts who were wanted to do a blood transfusion. Do you see?

 

Quote all the research you like, blood transfusions are used because the benefits outweigh the cons by a very large margin.

[Albert Tatlock]

Newspapers Bibles have a tendency to over simplify and to dramatise something to sell biblespapers.

Fixed your post.

[MarcusAurelius]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...6/nblood106.xml

 

She was anaemic, which didn't help. However, the report states that medical staff urged her and her family to give the consent for a blood transfusion. Medical staff with qualifications based on scientific research, experience, and who were actually there. Anyone who places a greater weight on scripture than their opinion is a fool.

 

So what of all those medical experts I have quoted are they fools too ?

 

Here's more information you

 

MAJOR SURGERY POSSIBLE

 

Although surgeons have often declined to treat Witnesses because their stand on the use of blood products seemed to "tie the doctor's hands," many physicians have now chosen to view the situation as only one more complication challenging their skill. Since Witnesses do not object to colloid or crystalloid replacement fluids, nor to electrocautery, hypotensive anesthesia,3 or hypothermia, these have been employed successfully. Current and future applications of hetastarch,4 large-dose intravenous iron dextran injections,5,6 and the "sonic scalpel"7 are promising and not religiously objectionable. Also, if a recently developed fluorinated blood substitute (Fluosol-DA) proves to be safe and effective,8 its use will not conflict with Witness beliefs.

 

In 1977, Ott and Cooley9 reported on 542 cardiovascular operations performed on Witnesses without transfusing blood and concluded that this procedure can be done "with an acceptably low risk." In response to our request, Cooley recently did a statistical review of 1,026 operations, 22% on minors, and determined "that the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah's Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others." Similarly, Michael E. DeBakey, MD, communicated "that in the great majority of situations [involving Witnesses] the risk of operation without the use of blood transfusions is no greater than in those patients on whom we use blood transfusions" (personal communication, March 1981). The literature also records successful major urologic10 and orthopedic surgery.11 G. Dean MacEwen, MD, and J. Richard Bowen, MD, write that posterior spinal fusion "has been successfully accomplished for 20 [Witness] minors" (unpublished data, August 1981). They add: "The surgeon needs to establish the philosophy of respect for a patient's right to refuse a blood transfusion but still perform surgical procedures in a manner that allows safety to the patient."

 

Herbsman reports success in cases, including some involving youths, "with massive traumatic blood loss." He admits that "Witnesses are somewhat at a disadvantage when it comes to blood requirements. Nevertheless it's also quite clear that we do have alternatives to blood replacement." Observing that many surgeons have felt restrained from accepting Witnesses as patients out of "fear of legal consequences," he shows that this is not a valid concern.

 

Look at the dates , 30 years ago in some cases , I am not one to question the medical team surrounding this young womans death , but again I refer to my own first hand experience.My wife lost 3 pints of blood during childbirth and yet without fuss or commotion from the consultant or the midwife they administered Saline and in no time at all her blood count was back upto normal

 

Newspapers have a tendency to over simplify and to dramatise something to sell papers.

[Gladys]

In a life or death situation, surely the arguments are a bit like trying a witch? If she survives then she definitely is a witch; if she dies, well, she can have a good Christian burial.

 

Yes, (as a medical layperson) a saline infusion will work, because it beefs up the blood pressure so the important bits in the blood get to the important bits of the body, what is your point?

[Albert Tatlock]

...surely the arguments are a bit like trying a witch?

I tried one once - but we got divorced.

[MarcusAurelius]

Firstly, a pragmatic view: you have the knowledge, means etc. to save a life, why not use them? Refusing them is a dereliction of duty either as a parent or a medical practitioner. So what if there may be other problems in transfusing blood; on an unemotional risk analysis, the unknown and unquantified dangers of a blood transfusion have got to be a better bet than the certain danger of death without it.

 

I can't answer this but can you answer this , why should this woman die from a lack of blood when my wife lost 3 pints of blood and within minutes ( approx 5 minutes ) of the Saline being administered her blood count was normal again.Why should it work for my wife and yet not for this woman ? Saline works in a very simple way , it literally expands your blood to the required level working in harmony with the bodies natural defences.

 

Secondly, (and I won't be able to argue this one convincingly for obvious reasons) if your objection is religious: You have to question where this diktat originates - different times, different knowledge - and then after thinking about it surely your thoughts would be that despite the archaic scriptures, God has allowed this knowledge to save lives for a purpose, and that purpose is known only to Him, it is a gift so why reject it?

 

Well, perhaps it is to do with the reward in heaven.......

 

But we all know what that can lead to.

 

I am not religious by anyone's standards, but if I have to fall in with a religious credo it would be Christian Aid's motto from some years back ' We Believe in Life Before Death'. So true on so many levels, and not a bad sentiment for believers and non-believers alike.

 

You say God has allowed this knowledge for a purpose ? That presupposes that God is in control of the world and everything that is currently going on in it, so you think God wants the world this way , with paedophilia , warfare , hunger , poverty , sickness , crime even death ?

 

Plus if you believe in God as I do then you must have heard that he has an opponent who wants to discourage as many people as possible from getting to know who that God really is , certainly not some vindictive , hateful God who takes people away in their prime.So many things go on in the world today in God's name and yet NONE of them are in God's name

 

You say the scriptures are archaic yet I doubt you have ever even looked into them.What reward in heaven might this be ? I don't want to go to Heaven I want to be here with my wife and kids

 

I suppose its a bad thing because this woman chose not to have blood and has paid for it with her life , she was obedient to God upto death and everyone says thats a bad thing , yet when a man gives up his life for his country he is hailed as a hero.

[Albert Tatlock]

why should this woman die from a lack of blood when my wife lost 3 pints of blood and within minutes ( approx 5 minutes ) of the Saline being administered her blood count was normal again.Why should it work for my wife and yet not for this woman ? Saline works in a very simple way , it literally expands your blood to the required level working in harmony with the bodies natural defences.

There are many variables e.g. not everyone has the same amount of blood, not everyone is of the same build, people lose blood at different rates/places, body temperature is a factor, alcohol can be a factor, shock can set in differently for people etc. etc. etc.