Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Jenny Collins]

If someone held a gun to my head, I'd drink the coffee, but I wouldn't like it. I think coffee tastes awful. Love the smell, though. I have to honor that 'other Mormon,' though. I'd give the same advice to my child, come to think of it.

You'd have to pick something else that I would rather die than do. Perhaps--allowing a child to die when I could prevent it?

Okay! We agree You want to prevent children's death, than your new agenda will be to go around educating people about unnecessary transfuions. You tried with us, in your agenda to stop us, now you will go after the ones who get unneeded ones and tell them they are risking their children's lives

 

[Jenny Collins]

No, it's a perfectly appropriate analogy. The man in WalMart probably doesn't think he's 'intentionally hurting the child." He's probably harking back to 'spare the rod..." (proverbs 13:24) His religious and parental beliefs will be violated if someone stops him.

So what's the difference there between the doctor who gives a child that lifesaving transfusion, and the guy who stops the beating?

.................and I will remind you, Jenny, that I'm not talking about those times when it's a matter of which treatment will work best, but only about those times when the situation is clear and unequivocal; blood transfusion or death, and the blood transfusion is the only thing that WILL work.

I know, those situations are more rare than anti-Jehovah's Witnesses claim...but they happen more often than YOU want to think they do. It is these situations, rare as they may be, of which I speak.

BTW, you can certainly tell me that you don't think Mormons should fight in wars. I don't think anybody should. if they all paid attention, we'd have a much nicer world. However, nobody does, so, partly n order to protect those who will not fight, we do. My point isn't that you don't have a right to feel as you do. It is that you are expecting others to violate their very heartfelt religious beliefs in order to accommodate yours, by allowing a child to die. I think that's too much to ask.

How do you know that a child needing blood "happens more than I think they do"? Just wondering! And if you bring up the parent hitting a child in walmart, then why would you fight in war and murder a fellow believer or anyone else? Murder is the worst violence of all

 

[dianaiad]

I cut anReplyd pasted a period symbol.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

No, I absolutely believe my beliefs are correct! And if I got some message from God that said "Go blow up a building" well then I would stop believing in my faith! But so far it is a lot better than anything else out there!

I sincerely hope you think so. To hold to a belief that you don't think is the best out there is the definition of 'hypocrisy.'

After this, will you go out and try to educate all of the people who give blood to their kids when in non-emergency situations?

You were doing pretty well there for a moment. Jenny, where do you see me saying that you should allow transfusions in 'non-emergency situations?"

You haven't cracked us, and it is just as likely that more have died from unnecessary transfusions than JWs dying without necessary transfusions!

Possibly, though we don't have the numbers to check that. this is, however, not the point.

Seriously! Could you make them your focus! I am not lying! That is just as dangerous

(sigh) Moving the goalposts is an admission that you lost the debate, Jenny.

 

[dianaiad]

Okay! We agree You want to prevent children's death, than your new agenda will be to go around educating people about unnecessary transfuions. You tried with us, in your agenda to stop us, now you will go after the ones who get unneeded ones and tell them they are risking their children's lives

Odd. I didn't think I had an 'agenda to stop you.' I'm simply pointing out that in those rare occasions when it really IS a matter of 'blood transfusion or die,' you are expecting the doctor/nurse to violate THEIR religious and ethical beliefs against allowing a child to die needlessly to accommodate your religious willingness to let that child die. It is unreasonable of you to expect this.

I mean, go ahead and fight the legal fight, but when you lose it and your child's life is saved in spite of you, be a little understanding and perhaps even a little grateful.

 

[dianaiad]

How do you know that a child needing blood "happens more than I think they do"?

Because you have pretty much out and out claimed this. It seems obvious to me that you think this never happens, so if it happens once or twice, it has to be more often than you think it does. You certainly are unwilling to concede that it does, and you keep equivocating, insisting that I have an 'agenda to stop you,' and am REALLY referring to 'non-emergency' transfusions when obviously I am not.

Just wondering! And if you bring up the parent hitting a child in walmart, then why would you fight in war and murder a fellow believer or anyone else? Murder is the worst violence of all

Yes, it is, and allowing a child to die when his death can be prevented is murder. Insisting that someone ELSE commit that murder (the doctor who could prevent the death being forced by you to refrain from saving him) is murder.

Disclaimer: remember that I am talking only about those rare occasions when the choice is clear, simple and unequivocal; blood transfusion or death. Immediate, not 'elective.'

Please do not equivocate, move the goal posts or otherwise misrepresent my position on this again. Thank you.

 

[psychoslice]

I addressed that issue early on, you just didn't read that! When the Jews were told to not eat blood, they could still eat meat! They drained the blood but there were still traces!

We know that the line has to be drawn somewhere! If a bug flies in my mouth and I swallow it, do I have to be upset because there was blood in his body?

When Jesus' apostle plucked a grain of wheat and ate it, the legalistic pharisees claimed that they were "working" on the Sabbath! Jesus chastised them for it! They didn't go out and plow a field, they popped something into their mouth!

Yes and this is why I think it is being used way too much in the Jw's church or teachings, its just not enough information to make it a big deal there are too many other important things to worry about than bloody blood lol.

 

[gnostic]

I don't know who you are, nor do I have anything against you! All I know is that this Olinda who I don't know either, is throwing your name around to bolster a blood argument with another person! Seems Olinda shouldn't get personal and back up her argument with facts, not bring other people into it as backup!

And I don't know you.

But from past experiences with Deeje, I have noticed that Deeje has the tendency to misrepresent, misinform and take out of contexts links (articles, essays, webpages and videos) she have supplied in posts.

And she not only does this, against science, like evolution, she does with the bible she quote from too.

Sure, she can have her own opinions and her interpretations in what she read and what she listen to, but not if she deliberately misrepresents what she is quoting.

And I am not only person who has noticed this.

And that doesn't speak well of her integrity.

And lastly, I don't she know as much about biology as she claimed. Rather than bulldozed people to accept her idea of what evolution is or isn't, why not just ask questions what she doesn't understand or learn from her mistakes. Instead she quote-mine and tried to evade with no-context photos and meaningless smileys.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, it is, and allowing a child to die when his death can be prevented is murder. Insisting that someone ELSE commit that murder (the doctor who could prevent the death being forced by you to refrain from saving him) is murder.

I actually find it funny...not "funny" as hilarious, but funny as I see the double-standard and hypocrisy of some faiths.

Is my understanding that JW are against abortion, saying it is murder.

But if a blood transfusion is the only mean of saving a child, the decision of JW parents to deny such treatment due to their religious belief, is not murder if the child dies.

That's hypocrisy. So much for pro-life of JW.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Since I

And I don't know you.

But from past experiences with Deeje, I have noticed that Deeje has the tendency to misrepresent, misinform and take out of contexts links (articles, essays, webpages and videos) she have supplied in posts.

And she not only does this, against science, like evolution, she does with the bible she quote from too.

Sure, she can have her own opinions and her interpretations in what she read and what she listen to, but not if she deliberately misrepresents what she is quoting.

And I am not only person who has noticed this.

And that doesn't speak well of her integrity.

And lastly, I don't she know as much about biology as she claimed. Rather than bulldozed people to accept her idea of what evolution is or isn't, why not just ask questions what she doesn't understand or learn from her mistakes. Instead she quote-mine and tried to evade with no-context photos and meaningless smileys.

Since I share her religious beliefs I doubt that she misrepresents the Bible! Don't know how good she is with science but I don't believe in evolution either! I have been so busy with my own comments, that the only ones that I read are the people talking to me!

People use that one a lot: "Other people say you are like this too" Maybe the "other people" are like minded and gang up! I haven't been here long but imagine people will start saying stuff about me too and reinforcing each other!

People do that! If they can get others to agree with them, then they think they are validating each other! If you have a problem with Deeje, just be honest with her and discuss it!

I don't know Olinda either but what she just wrote up there about blood being processed by the body differently than food, is an analogy used by an aggressive doctor who was opposed to JWs! We point out that if someone takes blood into the body,it is just a different way method! The doctor tried to say that the processes are dissimilar and that eating blood was different and that transfusions was not ingesting it, because it was processed differently!

For one, our Bible says "abstain" and abstain is a correct rendering! But who cares if eating and taking it in through the veins is somewhat different! Someone on our blood committee pointed out that that was pedantic and overly technical!

So what Olinda said here, makes me think she read what he said and lifted the idea, although she may deny it, and may or may not be truthful!

That same doctor also was trying to allege our elders pressured us to not take blood, but JWs were surveyed and it was revealed that they refused it absolutely on their own volition

So that doctor misrepresented us! So Olinda is doing the same that you are claiming that Deeje does! When people disagree, they always point out that the other person is obnoxious while excusing their own conduct, I have been like that myself, we all get that way!

So work the issue out with Deeje is what I would advise, just nicely discuss it

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes and this is why I think it is being used way too much in the Jw's church or teachings, its just not enough information to make it a big deal there are too many other important things to worry about than bloody blood lol.

Don't know what you mean by too many important things to worry about, I overthink sometimes, hope you aren't referring to apostate lies about us, and don't take them seriously! But maybe you mean too many important things in the world

But I don't want to go down that road about all that apostate distortion, so lets not talk about that

Anyway, I am truly burnt out by all of this and want it to end, okay? I had foot surgery and am recovering and can't do much and have been on here! It is affecting my mood and I want to have a more uplifting environment than this, so let's just stop this conversation, alright?

 

[psychoslice]

Don't know what you mean by too many important things to worry about, I overthink sometimes, hope you aren't referring to apostate lies about us, and don't take them seriously! But maybe you mean too many important things in the world

But I don't want to go down that road about all that apostate distortion, so lets not talk about that

Anyway, I am truly burnt out by all of this and want it to end, okay? I had foot surgery and am recovering and can't do much and have been on here! It is affecting my mood and I want to have a more uplifting environment than this, so let's just stop this conversation, alright?

Ok then thanks, hope you get better soon.

 

[gnostic]

Anyway, I am truly burnt out by all of this and want it to end, okay? I had foot surgery and am recovering and can't do much and have been on here! It is affecting my mood and I want to have a more uplifting environment than this, so let's just stop this conversation, alright?

I'm sorry to hear that you had surgery. I hoped that you have quick recovery.

This thread is a "debate" thread. And here are 8 "debate" sections at RF. If you want to cheer up, these areas are the wrong places to be.

 

[Olinda]

What do agnostic, jose fly and sapiens have to do with this discussion of blood, they are bickering evolution

Hi Jenny Collins, @Deeje herself brought the discussion of blood transfusions to the evolution thread.

if they don't like Deeje, that doesn't make what your claims about Deeje on this issue true! Sometimes more than one person gang up on another and it is faulty reasoning to say: "Those other ones don't like you, maybe they are right about you" Hard facts should be enough to win a debate, without appealing to "other people" who "don't like you too"

No, it was not intended to support my argument. I supplied the "hard facts" about the difference between Deeje's claims and what the video actually said at least three times. Deeje has not addressed these, even once. (Although she did claim I was "pedantic" too, but IMO I'm afraid it is irresponsible to spread medical information that is not accurate.)
What she did, however, was let some time elapse and repeat the claims she couldn't defend.
Now in the thread about the supposed discussion between 'young Einstein' and a professor, Deeje specifically asked why people were mentioning dishonesty.
I actually do not believe that she is intentionally dishonest, but has an immensely strong confirmation bias and the tendency to support her beliefs without checking sources or sometimes without fully understanding them.
Therefore I assumed she might be helped by some feedback.

 

[Ingledsva]

Science does not side with transfusions being safe! The studies show they aren't! Majority, even in the medical society sometimes, may be ignorant of the science or at least not bother to understand the risks! But the evidence is out there!

I live in a city of around 100, 000 and my ex husband had complications from Cancer surgery! There were options and treatments in existence that the local doctors were unaware of, but other doctors on the cutting edge did know of them!

We found this out because my husband's sister is a Veterinary Professor in a big city and had also worked at a teaching hospital prior to this! The teaching hospital had a veterinary department and also part of it was medicine for people!

My sister in law used this surgery with animals, and it existed for humans too! Therefore the surgery existed but some doctors were ignorant of the better approach!

My ex husband's (at the time we were married) mother had a local doctor tell her they would need to remove her foot, but my sister in law consulted with the doctors at the teaching hospital, they brought her there and they saved the foot!

The majority of doctors are not cutting edge, and are even ignorant and backwards in many ways

And on-and on-and on

So the MAJORITY of doctors, and scientists, and studies, that don't agree with YOU on this subject, - are ignorant? Sure they are. LOL!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

A co-worker showed me her toe! The doctor had removed the bone in it and she can move it around like a piece of spaghetti!

Then later other doctors laughed about it and said: "Oh, yeah we know that doctor! His solution to everything is to remove the bone"

He was an old doctor, not abreast on new options!

While some of these doctors in my city may not be old, they are not as experienced as the cutting edge doctors, and when the better treatments or the new way of thinking comes along, it takes time before the ones who were schooled to think a certain way, come around! They may not hear of every new piece of evidence, maybe don't have time to read the latest medical journals, or have a resistance to change their minds!

Remember the days when the surgeon general defended cigarette smoking? I was reading a dated medical article of a doctor saying that he did not believe the HIV virus caused AIDS!

Again - we have modern studies - and the majority of STUDIES, DOCTORS, and SCIENTISTS, don't agree with you.

*

 

[Oeste]

Yes, the video warns against unnecessary blood transfusions.
No, you have not proven that blood transfusions are unnecessary.
No, your religious position is not vindicated.

I would consider this "spot on" and a proper "exegesis" of the video.

This "blood transfusion" revelation of @Deeje and @Jenny-Collins reminds me of the "X-ray" revelation that occurred in the early 80's.

At that time X-rays were routinely performed on patients whether they needed an X-ray or not. In fact, there was no system or standard for training radiologists and most of the nurses, doctors and technicians were completely unaware of the risk inherent to patients and providers by radiation exposure.

As a result, Congress, acting under intense pressure from the health care community, passed a very sensible law (remember, this happened 30 years ago) requiring States to establish federally approved programs for the training and licensing of radiological technologists. source

However, even though studies have shown that routine x-ray use can pose a danger to unborn fetuses, patients, and doctors, I cannot recall any Christian Scientists claiming such studies "vindicated" their view against the medical profession. X-rays are still in use today and are an important and essential part of everyday medical practice, and that includes chest x-rays.

I think Jenny Collins and Deeje are reading something "into" the Australian report that just isn't there. Yes, blood transfusions pose a risk to the patient, but there are few medical procedures that don't. The video encourages our medical communities to realize the risk involved. It even suggests areas where blood transfusions might be contraindicated or advantageous.

Nowhere in the video do I see a suggestion that physicians ban or discontinue the use of blood transfusions, so the only "vindication" I see here is the same one I've seen for x-rays... highly beneficial but, like all medical procedures, to be performed only when necessary.

 

[Oeste]

I have to use exclamation points, I have a computer hardware malfunction and the period symbol doesn't work, although sometimes I cut and paste period symbols to use, it is time consuming

I cut and pasted a period symbol.

Another option is to reassign a rarely used key on your keyboard (like the tilde key ~) to be your period key. Use an option that won't require you to press 2 keys.

You can find instructions for Windows here. You may need to download Microsoft Mouse and Keyboard Center.

 

[dianaiad]

I would consider this "spot on" and a proper "exegesis" of the video.

This "blood transfusion" revelation of @Deeje and @Jenny-Collins reminds me of the "X-ray" revelation that occurred in the early 80's.

At that time X-rays were routinely performed on patients whether they needed an X-ray or not. In fact, there was no system or standard for training radiologists and most of the nurses, doctors and technicians were completely unaware of the risk inherent to patients and providers by radiation exposure.

As a result, Congress, acting under intense pressure from the health care community, passed a very sensible law (remember, this happened 30 years ago) requiring States to establish federally approved programs for the training and licensing of radiological technologists. source

However, even though studies have shown that routine x-ray use can pose a danger to unborn fetuses, patients, and doctors, I cannot recall any Christian Scientists claiming such studies "vindicated" their view against the medical profession. X-rays are still in use today and are an important and essential part of everyday medical practice, and that includes chest x-rays.

I think Jenny Collins and Deeje are reading something "into" the Australian report that just isn't there. Yes, blood transfusions pose a risk to the patient, but there are few medical procedures that don't. The video encourages our medical communities to realize the risk involved. It even suggests areas where blood transfusions might be contraindicated or advantageous.

Nowhere in the video do I see a suggestion that physicians ban or discontinue the use of blood transfusions, so the only "vindication" I see here is the same one I've seen for x-rays... highly beneficial but, like all medical procedures, to be performed only when necessary.

Indeed. I am currently taking some...interesting...medications. Some of them have warning labels five pages long, and one of 'em, lenalidomide (brand name 'Revlimid') is an offshoot of thalidomide. Remember thalidomide?

Now I'm a 67 year old widow who hasn't had a period in seventeen years, is a widow of 20 years...but every three or four months or so I have to fill out a 'survey' and promise on all sorts of whatevers that I will not share this medication with anybody who could be pregnant. I will not BECOME pregnant, and if I do, I will instantly inform my physicians. Men who take this are warned that the medication can 'travel' through sperm and cause problems for any woman they get pregnant, so they are told to use birth control, too.

Really.

It's insane. We all know what the risks of thalidomide and its analogs are. In addition to almost certain nasty birth defects, it can cause peripheral neuropathy, nausea, fatigue, tremor, diarhea and all manner of other miserable things. However, I take it anyway because, as one can find on most prescriptions that have this level of side effects, 'your doctor has prescribed this because he or she feels that taking it is better than not taking it, for you."

Trust me; if you don't need Revlimid, you don't want to take it. However, when you need it, few things do the job as well, at least so far....all the side effects notwithstanding.

Just like blood transfusions.

....

 

[psychoslice]

I believe the JW's have got themselves in a corner which they can't get out of, when God said to not eat the blood that is what he meant.
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female" (Gen. 7:2).
The clean beast are for eating.

Now if God din't want us to not eat blood, then why did he allow us to eat the beast that are full of blood, cooked or uncooked its still blood.
I think what he meant was that the blood was a symbol for life, so doesn't transfusions give life and not take it, so we are using it for life, or to save life, surely God wouldn't be against that, at least not a loving God.

And then he also say's not to shed blood, and at the same time he was responsible for shedding much blood, what is going on here, do we have a schizophrenic God ?.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't know that he almost died or not, your words, but would you like to hear some names of people that did die FROM transfusions? Arthur Ashe, Ryan White, Elizabeth Glaesar, Linda Lovelace! Lovelace not immediately! She lived many years with Hepatitis before finally succumbing! True these are mostly AIDS cases from the past, but so was Niels situation the past, and people are still catching disease from blood and we do not know the next disease that will turn up

Why are we judging a procedure now based on data from back before we realized certain diseases were an issue? This is why we screen for that, with both questionnaires and actual asceptic techniques now.

I don't know that he almost died or not

One thing I've learned from JW posters is that they rely heavily on stories that don't tell the whole story.

"Approximately 1 in 100 transfusions are accompanied by fever, chills, or urticarial [hives] Approximately 1 in 6,000 red cell transfusions results in a hemolytic transfusion reaction. This is a severe immunologic reaction that may occur acutely or in a delayed fashion some days after the transfusion; it may result in acute [kidney] failure, shock, intravascular coagulation, and even death."—National Institutes of Health (NIH) conference, 1988.

Per above, this isn't the 80s, either.

In science class, we were always told that sources had to be fewer than 5 years old to be considered valid.

And further, what difference does it make if it came from our publication? It still quotes reliable sources!

It doesn't, though.

I mean, you're not the only one: the OP also has bragged about how JW's don't trust medical professionals (I am a nurse with experience with blood transfusions ... haven't killed anyone yet) and are encouraged to avoid scholarly learning to avoid issues with "faith" or some nonsense.

First of all, it is impossible to calculate the deaths from transfusions!

LOL, what do you think happens when the doctor signs off on the death certificate what killed a person? The CDC is VERY interested to know why a person died, as is the state health departments and The Joint Commission. Seriously, if any of you actually read stuff outside your bubble, you'd know this.

During the Red Cross scandal of the 80s

*sigh* Did your church stop reading books in the 80s?

The fact of the matter is, that Mormons believe the Bible too

A lot of people with faith are still dead in the bible, too. Mortality rates are quite high in the bible and Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were not known for their medical expertise. You can find surgical equipment in ancient China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc ... nothing really science related at all in the Middle East until some Muslims read the ancient Greek and Roman stuff.

Human authorities or God?

How many children die because of this attitude, from diabetics to whatever? Sorry, it's neglect, pure and simple. If you want to risk your own lives, so be it, will support it even if I think it's stupid, but no, I will never agree with a parent's right to screw over the health of their child.