Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

Deeje said:

Hmmmm....since the warnings from these specialists forms part of the information that leads to an informed decision, I am bemused by your comment....?

Since the rounded out figures in the video confirm that almost 60% were "inappropriate" meaning that no transfusion was actually needed.....and almost 30% were "uncertain", meaning that it wasn't obvious that the patient needed a transfusion, I was being accurate, not over eager. Do the math. Since it was established that all transfusions are harmful, regardless of the doctor's opinion of 'appropriateness' of the treatment, the risks far outweighed the benefits in the vast majority of cases. That means that patients survived in spite of the transfusions, rather than because of them. The studies cited in the video prove it. The words, "increased morbidity and mortality" should never be used in the same sentence relating to a supposedly "life-saving" treatment.

Click to expand...

@Deeje said

If these specialist doctors admit, after all the studies published, that up to 88% of blood transfusions were not only unnecessary, but harmful, who wants to ignore that?

Click to expand...

I replied

Sadly, I must refer you back to your own video, around 2:18 in. It clearly says that 59.3% of transfusions were "inappropriate", 28.95 "uncertain" and 11.8% "appropriate". How does that support your assertion that "up to 88% of transfusions were not only unnecessary but harmful"?

Click to expand...

@Deeje responded

Since the rounded out figures in the video confirm that almost 60% were "inappropriate" meaning that no transfusion was actually needed.....and almost 30% were "uncertain", meaning that it wasn't obvious that the patient needed a transfusion, I was being accurate, not over eager. Do the math. Since it was established that all transfusions are harmful, regardless of the doctor's opinion of 'appropriateness' of the treatment, the risks far outweighed the benefits in the vast majority of cases. That means that patients survived in spite of the transfusions, rather than because of them.

Click to expand...

Yet another claim, namely "Since it was established that all transfusions are harmful". This was not asserted in the video, let alone established. The only thing I can see that you could suppose was evidence was the cytoscan. Now this was of a single patient, no information on any conditions other than the severe GI bleeding, no information on allergies, medications, anything. The commentary was "This work starts to provide insights into the possible mechanisms underlying the limited evidence for transfusion efficacy". In other words, it is the beginning of experimental study, and at present no conclusions are drawn. What a far cry from claiming that "all transfusions are harmful!!

This is why I suggested that you were over-eager to claim support. Your own source does not provide it.
The advocacy was for a "patient based" decision, rather than "product based"; exactly as recommended by the source I quoted.

The words, "increased morbidity and mortality" should never be used in the same sentence relating to a supposedly "life-saving" treatment.

Click to expand...

Yes, you said this before, but it is simply rhetoric. Heart surgery, for instance, is traumatic and often associated with morbidity and mortality. It is still undertaken, and even commonplace, because an informed risk assessment indicates that not doing it will result in worse outcomes. All procedures and medications should be similarly considered, but there are still many good outcomes from informed acceptance of risk.

Also bear in mind the title of the video.
Blood transfusions save lives . . . but there are risks

Blood. Transfusions. Save. Lives. According to your own medical specialists.

Deeje said:

Are you bored again today? What back peddling skills would they be?

Click to expand...

Interesting that you seem to think ignoring the fact you repeatedly lied makes it somehow ok to repeatedly flat out lie.
Even more revealing that you try to turn the focus from your bold faced lies to me being bored.
Indicates you do, in fact, know you lied.

Mestemia said:

Interesting that you seem to think ignoring the fact you repeatedly lied makes it somehow ok to repeatedly flat out lie.
Even more revealing that you try to turn the focus from your bold faced lies to me being bored.
Indicates you do, in fact, know you lied.

Click to expand...

I wonder each day if they know they lie.

dianaiad said:

That they are...but aren't stem cells harvested from the blood considered a blood product?

Click to expand...

For us blood is sacred and not to be tampered with. God's law to his ancient people was non negotiable and anyone consuming blood in any form was cut off.

The first prohibition on blood was given to Noah after the flood. (Gen 9:3, 4) With permission to eat the flesh of animals came to command not to consume its blood.
In the law given to Israel, this prohibition was repeated and expanded. (Lev 17:10-12)
It was also restated for Christians in Acts 15:28, 29. This is why we take it so seriously.

True, the Book of Mormon is only scripture to us, but....I know that Jehovah's Witnesses use their own version of the bible (I think...) but since when is the KJV a 'different bible?" Mind you, I have also been known to use Young's literal and several other translations, even "The Message" when I need a giggle, but as far as I am aware, the King James Version is generally accepted as a 'proper' translation in most of Christendom. (grin)

Click to expand...

I grew up with the KJV and studied it with JW's over 40 years ago. I find the archaic English annoying now. I read and speak modern English so I prefer a Bible that translates into language I understand. The NWT is not just our own version of the Bible...it is in fact a very accurate translation free from trinitarian bias which is so clearly seen in the KJV.
Happy to do a translation comparison anytime.

We will all die of something, and I, unlike most people, have a pretty good idea of how I'm going to go, if not precisely when. I'm OK with that, actually. I have also noticed that suicide is not considered a good thing. Many beliefs consider it to be a 'mortal sin' (though that's a concept I don't really agree with).

Click to expand...

We have no desire to 'commit suicide'...in fact we have the same desire to keep living as anyone else, but we will not break God's law to preserve this life as if it was the most important. There are no escape clauses in this law. Jesus said "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

There are very few JW's who die as a result of refusing blood.....these days hardly any, and if they do, most likely they would have died from the cause of their illness anyway. There are no guarantees that blood will save anyone's life. Preserving one's life at all costs is not what being a Christian is all about.

The other controversial subject of euthanasia is an interesting one for Christians though. Whilst we would object to active euthanasia.....passive euthanasia breaks no law of God or man. What is your position on that?

The idea for me, however, is that if one CAN extend one's life through whatever moral and ethical means are available (means that don't harm others, in other words), so that one can have more time to do what needs to be done in this lifetime, and one does not, then it is a form of suicide.

Click to expand...

For a Christian there is another consideration. If the means to preserve one's life comes at the cost of compromise on God's stated laws, then it is not suicide at all...it is called sacrifice. Being "faithful unto death" is a mark of Christian courage.

When the early Christians faced being torn apart by wild animals in the Roman arena, they were given the option to walk free. All they had to do was place a pinch on incense on the alter as an act of worship to the Emperor, and their lives would have been spared.....but they refused. Men and women died an horrific death along with their children rather than break the law of God. Now that is the kind of faith we should all aspire to, don't you think?

Olinda said:

@Deeje said


I replied


@Deeje responded


Yet another claim, namely "Since it was established that all transfusions are harmful". This was not asserted in the video, let alone established. The only thing I can see that you could suppose was evidence was the cytoscan. Now this was of a single patient, no information on any conditions other than the severe GI bleeding, no information on allergies, medications, anything. The commentary was "This work starts to provide insights into the possible mechanisms underlying the limited evidence for transfusion efficacy". In other words, it is the beginning of experimental study, and at present no conclusions are drawn. What a far cry from claiming that "all transfusions are harmful!!

This is why I suggested that you were over-eager to claim support. Your own source does not provide it.
The advocacy was for a "patient based" decision, rather than "product based"; exactly as recommended by the source I quoted.


Yes, you said this before, but it is simply rhetoric. Heart surgery, for instance, is traumatic and often associated with morbidity and mortality. It is still undertaken, and even commonplace, because an informed risk assessment indicates that not doing it will result in worse outcomes. All procedures and medications should be similarly considered, but there are still many good outcomes from informed acceptance of risk.

Also bear in mind the title of the video.
Blood transfusions save lives . . . but there are risks

Blood. Transfusions. Save. Lives. According to your own medical specialists.

Click to expand...

I will allow the information in the OP video to stand on its own merits. People are free to make their own choices, but the risk verse benefit ration is nothing close to what it used to be.
If you can listen to these clinicians give their warnings and advocate for a change of attitude towards this practice and take no notice...that is up to you.

Deeje said:

For us blood is sacred and not to be tampered with. God's law to his ancient people was non negotiable and anyone consuming blood in any form was cut off.

The first prohibition on blood was given to Noah after the flood. (Gen 9:3, 4) With permission to eat the flesh of animals came to command not to consume its blood.
In the law given to Israel, this prohibition was repeated and expanded. (Lev 17:10-12)
It was also restated for Christians in Acts 15:28, 29. This is why we take it so seriously.

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say not to, "consume blood in any form"?

With the permission to eat "animal flesh" came the command "not to consume blood". If God didn't want us to consume "blood in any form" why did He wait until He gave permission to eat "animal flesh" to institute that command?

Deeje said:

For a Christian there is another consideration. If the means to preserve one's life comes at the cost of compromise on God's stated laws, then it is not suicide at all...it is called sacrifice. Being "faithful unto death" is a mark of Christian courage.

Click to expand...

Deeje said:

We have no desire to 'commit suicide'...in fact we have the same desire to keep living as anyone else, but we will not break God's law to preserve this life as if it was the most important. There are no escape clauses in this law. Jesus said "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Click to expand...

So you're suggesting, if a "Christian" has a disease or a terminal sickness, (which never comes from God) he should "be faithful unto death", that would be "losing his life for Jesus' sake"? That verse isn't referring to "death", you would see that if you kept it in context.

Matthew 10:37-39 (ESV Strong's)
37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Deeje said:

I will allow the information in the OP video to stand on its own merits. People are free to make their own choices, but the risk verse benefit ration is nothing close to what it used to be.
If you can listen to these clinicians give their warnings and advocate for a change of attitude towards this practice and take no notice...that is up to you.

Click to expand...

If abstaining from blood is one of God's "stated laws" why go through all the trouble and argument of a post of what "men" have to say about transfusions? Why try to enforce what God has commanded with what "men" say about it? If it is a command from God, does it really matter what any "man" has to say?

It's strange that you say it is a command from God to abstain from "any form of blood", but you are using the knowledge of the "men" in your country to validate that command.

savagewind said:

I wonder each day if they know they lie.

Click to expand...

I think some of them know they are lying, but they can't go against the WT because they would lose everything they love!

Deeje said:

.......
When the early Christians faced being torn apart by wild animals in the Roman arena, they were given the option to walk free. All they had to do was place a pinch on incense on the alter as an act of worship to the Emperor, and their lives would have been spared.....but they refused. Men and women died an horrific death along with their children rather than break the law of God. Now that is the kind of faith we should all aspire to, don't you think?

Click to expand...

.Deeje, and I'm about to write this with all respect and honor for you and for your beliefs, I do not fault you for a choice you would make. As well, I'm not attempting to talk you out of your beliefs in any way. if I were given the same choice, where it was the difference between getting killed and abandoning my principles and beliefs, I would choose to uphold my principles and beliefs. However, I would uphold MY principles and beliefs, not yours.

As those early believers were rounded up and sent to the lions, some were indeed given that choice. Those who believed, and chose to save their lives rather than uphold their own principles were truly hypocrites. However, those who did not belong among those early Christian believers, who were caught up in a culture and group they did not actually share...did they sin by casting a 'pinch of incense' upon the altar of a deity they DID believe in, especially if doing so saved their lives? I don't think so, and I think that some people hold to beliefs and principles held by others, not because THEY believe, but because they love the company of those who do.

Hypocrisy is 'a feigning to be what one is not, or to believe what one does not,' according to the dictionary. If I had been, way back then, a closet believer in Diana, I would have been hypocritical indeed to have REFRAINED from putting that pinch of incense on the altar, and I, three years ago, would have been hypocritical if I had allowed the Jehovah's Witness view of blood products to color my decision regarding bone marrow transplants and platelet transfusions.

"Sin" is a very subjective concept; personal and between oneself and God, or between oneself and one's own personal stated ethical code, for those who don't believe in a deity. It is, when one comes down to it, hypocrisy writ in action. Those things which are sin for you are not for me, and vice versa. I am not sinning by using blood products, and you are not sinning by drinking coffee, or tea.

But your OP isn't about sinning. You attempted to make a scientific 'proof' of religious beliefs; to support your religious objection to using blood products with science...and frankly, very selective science. It is only because of that intent that I chimed in with my own experience. The FACT is, had I not done what I did three years ago, I wouldn't be here now. That's fact. I can't argue with you about the religious aspect of it, just the scientific one.

Would it really have been better had I chosen to die (and that's the choice it would have been) rather than to violate YOUR religious beliefs? What I did didn't harm anybody at all, and helped me a great deal. It didn't violate any of my principles and beliefs.

Now it might happen (as it might happen that the sun stopped shining four minutes ago) that I suddenly convert to the Jehovah's Witness way of thinking. If that happens, THEN I would be sinning if I did a second transplant. As it is, however, I won't be.

On the other hand, I won't be drinking the coffee they serve at breakfast.

dianaiad said:

.Deeje, and I'm about to write this with all respect and honor for you and for your beliefs, I do not fault you for a choice you would make. As well, I'm not attempting to talk you out of your beliefs in any way. if I were given the same choice, where it was the difference between getting killed and abandoning my principles and beliefs, I would choose to uphold my principles and beliefs. However, I would uphold MY principles and beliefs, not yours.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to you and your beliefs as well, I don't think I attempted in any part of this thread to suggest otherwise. My point was not the beliefs of JW's per se, but to inform people about the dangers inherent in the practice of unnecessary blood transfusions. I don't believe that patients are given all the facts and this video confirms that doctors in this field of medicine are sounding a warning and stressing that attitudes towards this routine procedure need to be changed without delay. If you have any doubts about that please watch the video again. Listen for the words "increased risk of morbidity and mortality" and you will understand their concerns. Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

As those early believers were rounded up and sent to the lions, some were indeed given that choice. Those who believed, and chose to save their lives rather than uphold their own principles were truly hypocrites. However, those who did not belong among those early Christian believers, who were caught up in a culture and group they did not actually share...did they sin by casting a 'pinch of incense' upon the altar of a deity they DID believe in, especially if doing so saved their lives? I don't think so, and I think that some people hold to beliefs and principles held by others, not because THEY believe, but because they love the company of those who do.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that there are ways to circumvent the laws of God? Do they have loopholes? Can we offer excuses to him as to why we wanted to save our lives by breaking his law? Would we apply the same criteria to a situation where we were told to kill another person or be killed ourselves....if God's law says "you shalt not kill", could we sacrifice someone else's life to save our own? The principal is the same to my way of thinking. Christian or not, we all know that it is wrong to take someone else's life.The law wasn't ambiguous.
Consuming blood was against God's law too and it was restated to Christians in Acts 15:28, 29. Are we free to break it to save our lives? Its a rhetorical question, asked in our own heart.

The Biblical principal is made clear by Paul....

Romans 2:12-15 NKJV:
"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)"

So even though a person who does not profess belief in God and has no regard for his laws, if they break them, they will still "perish". Those who willingly come under God's law will be judged according to that law. Those who through circumstance have no knowledge of God's laws, are judged by the workings of their own God-given conscience, "doing by nature the things of the law" and they are thus are either 'accused' or 'excused' by God for their actions.

Hypocrisy is 'a feigning to be what one is not, or to believe what one does not,' according to the dictionary. If I had been, way back then, a closet believer in Diana, I would have been hypocritical indeed to have REFRAINED from putting that pinch of incense on the altar, and I, three years ago, would have been hypocritical if I had allowed the Jehovah's Witness view of blood products to color my decision regarding bone marrow transplants and platelet transfusions.

Click to expand...

It is not JW's view of blood that is the point of this thread....it is the medical profession's own specialists sounding this warning from a purely medical viewpoint. It just happens to validate our stand....that we are not religious fanatics who want to 'commit suicide' or refuse medical treatment, but that we are sincere Bible believers who want to be obedient to God's laws, regardless of what others think, and no matter the cost to us personally. Faith in God and obedience to his commands is all he has ever asked of his worshippers.

It is not my place to judge the individual actions of any person other than myself. But if there is medical and biblical knowledge that can assist people in making informed choices about something as important to God as the lifeblood in us, then I think the information should be shared so that those choices are made with all the facts, not just the convenient ones.

"Sin" is a very subjective concept; personal and between oneself and God, or between oneself and one's own personal stated ethical code, for those who don't believe in a deity. It is, when one comes down to it, hypocrisy writ in action. Those things which are sin for you are not for me, and vice versa. I am not sinning by using blood products, and you are not sinning by drinking coffee, or tea.

Click to expand...

I am confused by this stance. Where is the command to abstain from alcohol, tea or coffee found in the Bible? Jesus turned water into wine as his first miracle. All cultures have their warm drink of choice. Do you take aspirin for a headache? Is that wrong? What about other drugs? Do you abstain from them too?

I see clear commands to abstain from blood, however. This to me appears to be "straining at gnats whilst gulping down camels"...or tea and coffee.

But your OP isn't about sinning. You attempted to make a scientific 'proof' of religious beliefs; to support your religious objection to using blood products with science...and frankly, very selective science. It is only because of that intent that I chimed in with my own experience. The FACT is, had I not done what I did three years ago, I wouldn't be here now. That's fact. I can't argue with you about the religious aspect of it, just the scientific one.

Click to expand...

I think it is beneficial to consider all the facts when analyzing any dilemma, especially where life is involved. There was no such thing as a blood transfusion when the Bible was written. So more modern methods of treatment still have to meet the Bible's criteria, don't they?
Can you shelve the laws of God on SSM or homosexuality for example, to make gay people feel accepted? And since it is so common these days for people to live together without marriage, can we as Christians then put aside Christ's teachings about fornication and adultery to make those breaking those laws feel better? Don't we first have to ask how God feels? Has he left us in any doubt about those moral issues?

We see the consumption of blood as a moral issue. It isn't the delivery system that makes it more acceptable....it is taking blood into one's body against the direct command of our Creator. If it wasn't important to him, why did he keep repeating it all through the Bible?

Just out of curiosity, (and please no offense) if you had lost your battle in this life three years ago, and 'you wouldn't be here now'....where would you be?

Would it really have been better had I chosen to die (and that's the choice it would have been) rather than to violate YOUR religious beliefs? What I did didn't harm anybody at all, and helped me a great deal. It didn't violate any of my principles and beliefs.

Click to expand...

That is a moot point because as you can see from Paul's words, we are all under the laws of God whether we acknowledge them or not. YOUR religious principles have nothing to do with this topic. Either blood a "life-saving" medical treatment or it is the cause of more medical problems than it solves. And either blood is sacred to God and his law states that we are to avoid consuming it...or it isn't. The issues are very clear cut in my view. "Have we broken God's law?" is a question we must all ask of ourselves.

Now it might happen (as it might happen that the sun stopped shining four minutes ago) that I suddenly convert to the Jehovah's Witness way of thinking. If that happens, THEN I would be sinning if I did a second transplant. As it is, however, I won't be.

Click to expand...

Again, as you have said...that is between you and your Maker....nothing to do with me.

On the other hand, I won't be drinking the coffee they serve at breakfast.

Click to expand...

Do camels taste better than gnats? LOL

Deeje said:

I will allow the information in the OP video to stand on its own merits. People are free to make their own choices, but the risk verse benefit ration is nothing close to what it used to be.
If you can listen to these clinicians give their warnings and advocate for a change of attitude towards this practice and take no notice...that is up to you.

Click to expand...

I will allow the information in the OP video to stand on its own merits.

Click to expand...

We are in agreement then; it's always better not to add to what was 'written'. Have a good one!

Deeje said:

With all due respect to you and your beliefs as well, I don't think I attempted in any part of this thread to suggest otherwise. My point was not the beliefs of JW's per se, but to inform people about the dangers inherent in the practice of unnecessary blood transfusions. I don't believe that patients are given all the facts and this video confirms that doctors in this field of medicine are sounding a warning and stressing that attitudes towards this routine procedure need to be changed without delay. If you have any doubts about that please watch the video again. Listen for the words "increased risk of morbidity and mortality" and you will understand their concerns. Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors.

Click to expand...

Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors.

Click to expand...

Where does it say that? Perhaps I missed it. .

Olinda said:

Where does it say that? Perhaps I missed it. .

Click to expand...

In the video, please see from .59-1.46 then 4.50 - 5.15

Where in the Bible does it say not to, "consume blood in any form"?

Click to expand...

Lev 17:10-14:
" As for anyone, whether of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing among them, who consumes any blood, I will set myself against that individual and will cut that person off from among the people, 11 since the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement on the altar for yourselves, because it is the blood as life that makes atonement. 12 That is why I have told the Israelites: No one among you, not even a resident alien, may consume blood.

13 Anyone hunting, whether of the Israelites or of the aliens residing among them, who catches an animal or a bird that may be eaten, shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth, 14 since the life of all flesh is its blood. I have told the Israelites: You shall not consume the blood of any flesh. Since the life of all flesh is its blood, anyone who consumes it shall be cut off."

You want it more plainly stated?

With the permission to eat "animal flesh" came the command "not to consume blood". If God didn't want us to consume "blood in any form" why did He wait until He gave permission to eat "animal flesh" to institute that command

Click to expand...

Lets keep it simple.....as you can see from Leviticus 17, unbled meat was part of the command to abstain from blood. If an animal killed for food was not properly bled, it was a sin to consume the flesh. Make sense now?

So you're suggesting, if a "Christian" has a disease or a terminal sickness, (which never comes from God) he should "be faithful unto death", that would be "losing his life for Jesus' sake"? That verse isn't referring to "death", you would see that if you kept it in context.

Matthew 10:37-39 (ESV Strong's)
37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Click to expand...

Is there another way to "lose your life" that I am unaware of? The last time I looked, Christian martyrdom was praised by God. If it wasn't, then a lot of Christians died in vain.

If abstaining from blood is one of God's "stated laws" why go through all the trouble and argument of a post of what "men" have to say about transfusions? Why try to enforce what God has commanded with what "men" say about it? If it is a command from God, does it really matter what any "man" has to say?

It's strange that you say it is a command from God to abstain from "any form of blood", but you are using the knowledge of the "men" in your country to validate that command.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the thread was to bring to people's attention a potentially dangerous procedure that is still being routinely performed in hospitals as we speak. The fact that the video in the OP validates our position is a bonus. The fact that it is doctors who are specialist in this field of medicine who are issuing the warning adds a lot of weight to the correctness of God's laws.

Try to keep up will you?

Deeje said:

With all due respect to you and your beliefs as well, I don't think I attempted in any part of this thread to suggest otherwise. My point was not the beliefs of JW's per se, but to inform people about the dangers inherent in the practice of unnecessary blood transfusions. I don't believe that patients are given all the facts and this video confirms that doctors in this field of medicine are sounding a warning and stressing that attitudes towards this routine procedure need to be changed without delay. If you have any doubts about that please watch the video again. Listen for the words "increased risk of morbidity and mortality" and you will understand their concerns. Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

Click to expand...

Deeje, you are a Jehovah's Witness. For you to bring up studies on the dangers of blood transfusion is going to be perceived as an attempt to support your beliefs, in the same way that I, being a Mormon, would be perceived as attempting to support my beliefs about the Word of Wisdom (at least the part about abstaining from coffee, tea, tobacco and booze) by pointing out the evils of caffeine, alcohol and tobacco...whether that was my intent or not....and that perception would be correct, wouldn't it? I'm not a doctor or a nutritionist and this isn't a health forum. You are, probably, not in the medical profession and this isn't a medical forum. ARE there problems with blood transfusions? Sure. The question, when considering one, isn't whether there are problems. It's whether the benefits outweigh the potential problems. In my case they did. In many cases they do. One can well claim religious objections to receiving blood transfusions, but don't use science to support your religious views.

Why? Two reasons: first, that's not what science is FOR, and second, scientists can turn around and find something that might well bite your religion squarely in the behind, before they change their minds again. For instance, there has been an argument about plate tectonics for many hundreds of years. Many scientists over those years have argued about whether the earth was static, or the continents moved, or what volcanoes and earthquakes were all about. It's only been in MY lifetime that everybody has settled down to a solid understanding of continental drift and plate tectonics; my father's college geology text doesn't include it at all except as a footnote regarding oddball theories. Shoot, MY college geology teacher was just getting really excited about it himself. Now everybody knows about it and this idea is pretty much the basis for much of geological understanding regarding the earth. Consider; a religion which used then current understanding regarding a static planet, and presented that as support for its precepts, would be in some difficulty right now, wouldn't it? It has to scramble all over the place explaining things away.

No, Deeje...I do believe that eventually science and religion WILL merge into one solid understanding of how things work, but that day is not this day. Scientists are still discovering new things and altering their theories according to the facts they find. Religion looks in a different way, for a different truth, and the two methods of searching should utterly leave each other alone. So...as it turns out, caffeine isn't all that bad for you, tea may well be GOOD for you, a glass of wine a day might well be beneficial, and the only thing still on the 'eww' list is tobacco. However, I remember advertisements for cigarettes that touted 'scientific studies' that proved their health benefits.

I abstain from those things: coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco, because I promised not to do so. It's part of what makes me a Mormon. It has NOTHING to do with their health benefits, pro or con. You abstain from blood transfusions because of your religious beliefs; because you don't think that God wants you to do this. That's fine. That's all the reason anybody requires. You don't have to justify it to anybody else, and what's more important to the rest of us, you don't need to tell us how sinful and damned WE are if we disagree with you about it.

Trust me on this: nobody is going to become a Jehovah's Witness because some Australian doctor talks about the risk/benefit ratio of blood transfusions. Nobody is going to convert to your way of thinking because they are suddenly afraid of blood transfusions. If he or she decides to reject transfusions, it will be because he or she has converted to the whole of your beliefs.

You guys aren't wrong about EVERYTHING, mind you. My own opinion, however, is that my beliefs are considerably more correct than yours are, and therefore....I stay where I am. As for you, my hope and prayer is that you hold to the truths you have, whether you agree with me about what those truths are, or not.

Deeje said:

The purpose of the thread was to bring to people's attention a potentially dangerous procedure that is still being routinely performed in hospitals as we speak.

The fact that the video in the OP validates our position is a bonus. The fact that it is doctors who are specialist in this field of medicine who are issuing the warning adds a lot of weight to the correctness of God's laws.

Click to expand...

I have serious doubts that the reason for the OP is about much of anything other than a sad attempt at justifying your beliefs.
The main reason I have serious doubts is your consistent dishonesty this entire thread.

Deeje said:

Try to keep up will you?

Click to expand...

I have kept up.
In fact, my keeping up seems to be annoying you.
Or perhaps it my calling you out on the dishonesty...?

Deeje said:

In the video, please see from .59-1.46 then 4.50 - 5.15

Click to expand...

Thank you, @Deeje .

I think you meant to refer to where Prof. James Ibister says at 4.36 ". . .allogeneic blood transfusion has the potential for a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes than probably any other clinical intervention". (my underlining).

Yet what you said was "Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors."

You do see that this is the second time you have misquoted the video, don't you? Each time making the risks sound worse. I'm still confident that it is unintentional; but it's really important to be accurate where health decisions can be affected.

Olinda said:

Thank you, @Deeje .

I think you meant to refer to where Prof. James Ibister says at 4.36 ". . .allogeneic blood transfusion has the potential for a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes than probably any other clinical intervention". (my underlining).

Yet what you said was "Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors."

You do see that this is the second time you have misquoted the video, don't you? Each time making the risks sound worse. I'm still confident that it is unintentional; but it's really important to be accurate where health decisions can be affected.

Click to expand...

You obviously know the difference between autologous and allogenic transplants and transfusions. In case anybody else is confused, "allogenic" means from a donor, and 'autologous' means from oneself. Autologous transfusions are much preferred, when that can happen for elective surgery. The risks involved with autologous tranfusions are, frankly....minimal. As in, there really aren't any.

As it happens, allogenic transfusions are like allogenic transplants of any other organ. They can be risky and should only be done when necessary. Like allogenic transplants of any other organ, like kidneys, hearts, lungs..or bone marrow..mismatched blood transplants raise the problem of host vs. graft disease, or even worse, graft vs. host disease This can kill you. However, unlike organ transplants, 'the other' blood pretty much disappears in a 120 days or so, at most, and do not require, if any care at all is taken in type matching, the anti-rejection medication other organ transplants do.

The big difference in philosophy/science here is this: risky or not, there are times when the benefits outweigh the risks, and when that happens, those who don't have religious objections don't need to have those who do present out of context and strawman arguments. Personally, I don't think that blood transfusions should be looked at as 'meh...go for it.' Transfusions are like any other organ transplant; if there's time, the risks and benefits should be considered.

If there isn't, then the person making the medical decisions should be able to do so without having someone ELSE'S religious beliefs get in the way.

I have seen where some people credit the influence of Jehovah's Witnesses upon the current push to have alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions. I think AIDS had more to do with it, frankly, but hey....I'm a wee bit biased here.

My objection to the OP is similar to yours. Deeje IS slightly misquoting scientific pronouncements to support a religious opinion. As I have already written, that's a dangerous practice. Medical texts are not scripture, and the bible is not a scientific text. These fields have entirely different goals, and entirely different methods of seeking for truth. It doesn't mean that either method is invalid.

I mean, really: one does not use an odometer to measure the depth of a lake, nor sonar to measure the color of a rainbow. This doesn't mean that the odometer isn't the perfect thing to measure distance, nor sonar a really good way to avoid that iceberg.

Religion is about why God did something, or IF there's a God TO do something...not how. Science is about understanding the process, whether or not a deity is involved.

Olinda said:

Thank you, @Deeje .

I think you meant to refer to where Prof. James Ibister says at 4.36 ". . .allogeneic blood transfusion has the potential for a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes than probably any other clinical intervention". (my underlining).

Yet what you said was "Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors."

You do see that this is the second time you have misquoted the video, don't you? Each time making the risks sound worse. I'm still confident that it is unintentional; but it's really important to be accurate where health decisions can be affected.

Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't pedantic enough with my quotations. It wasn't just Prof Ibister...it was all of the doctors who spoke in support of alternative procedures. None of them advocated for the use of blood in elective situations. Not even in cases of severe anemia was it suggested that blood was the treatment of choice. It seems as if we have selective hearing among the readers in this thread.

Deeje said:

Sorry I wasn't pedantic enough with my quotations. It wasn't just Prof Ibister...it was all of the doctors who spoke in support of alternative procedures. None of them advocated for the use of blood in elective situations. Not even in cases of severe anemia was it suggested that blood was the treatment of choice. It seems as if we have selective hearing among the readers in this thread.

Click to expand...

No, Deeje.

There is a rather big difference between what the doc said...and what you claimed he said. Really, there is. When one is describing a scientific theory, conclusion or opinion, it's important to be...not 'pedantic,' but 'precise.' Autologous blood transfusions are NOT the same as allogenic ones, insofar as risks are concerned. The difference between the two is, frankly, huge. There's also a rather large difference between 'has the potential for a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes,' and "bood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure"

"allogenic blood transfusion," where the doc rather specifically identified what sort of transfusion he was talking about, is NOT
"blood transfusions," where the implication is 'all' blood transfusions.

"potential for a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes" is NOT
"cause more problems," any more than 'May" is a synonym for 'will.'

What you just did is called a 'fallacy of composition,' where you are claiming that because one subset of a group has a property (allogenic blood transfusions have the potential for a wider range of adverse outcomes", then the members of the larger group ALSO has that property (all blood transfusions have such a potential). In reality, they don't. Autologous transfusions are pretty much risk free, which is why they are preferred for elective surgery when possible.

It's also not a good idea to paraphrase an author's quote in such a way as to change his meaning.

One can get caught, and when one does, the meat of one's message may get lost in the manner of delivery.

And THAT, Deeje...is me being pedantic.

dianaiad said:

You obviously know the difference between autologous and allogenic transplants and transfusions. In case anybody else is confused, "allogenic" means from a donor, and 'autologous' means from oneself. Autologous transfusions are much preferred, when that can happen for elective surgery. The risks involved with autologous tranfusions are, frankly....minimal. As in, there really aren't any.

As it happens, allogenic transfusions are like allogenic transplants of any other organ. They can be risky and should only be done when necessary. Like allogenic transplants of any other organ, like kidneys, hearts, lungs..or bone marrow..mismatched blood transplants raise the problem of host vs. graft disease, or even worse, graft vs. host disease This can kill you. However, unlike organ transplants, 'the other' blood pretty much disappears in a 120 days or so, at most, and do not require, if any care at all is taken in type matching, the anti-rejection medication other organ transplants do.

The big difference in philosophy/science here is this: risky or not, there are times when the benefits outweigh the risks, and when that happens, those who don't have religious objections don't need to have those who do present out of context and strawman arguments. Personally, I don't think that blood transfusions should be looked at as 'meh...go for it.' Transfusions are like any other organ transplant; if there's time, the risks and benefits should be considered.

If there isn't, then the person making the medical decisions should be able to do so without having someone ELSE'S religious beliefs get in the way.

I have seen where some people credit the influence of Jehovah's Witnesses upon the current push to have alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions. I think AIDS had more to do with it, frankly, but hey....I'm a wee bit biased here.

My objection to the OP is similar to yours. Deeje IS slightly misquoting scientific pronouncements to support a religious opinion. As I have already written, that's a dangerous practice. Medical texts are not scripture, and the bible is not a scientific text. These fields have entirely different goals, and entirely different methods of seeking for truth. It doesn't mean that either method is invalid.

I mean, really: one does not use an odometer to measure the depth of a lake, nor sonar to measure the color of a rainbow. This doesn't mean that the odometer isn't the perfect thing to measure distance, nor sonar a really good way to avoid that iceberg.

Religion is about why God did something, or IF there's a God TO do something...not how. Science is about understanding the process, whether or not a deity is involved.

Click to expand...

Yes, @dianaiad , we do agree. Especially about not trying to use science to bolster religious decisions, or pronouncing judgement on scientifically verifiable matters based on beliefs.

The "allogenic" vs "autologous" issue (yep, I had to look it up ) seems quite pertinent to this thread, as I understand that both are forbidden by jw doctrine.