Jw and blood transfusjon

[nPeace]

@Meandflower you might be interested in this.
43 Bloodless Surgeries in 25 Years
Sister Cecilia Alvarez, from Argentina, has dealt with severe health problems her entire life. Her first procedure was when she was only 16 days old...


1999: Five-year-old Cecilia at Juan P. Garrahan Children’s Hospital

When blood transfusions are force on children, of Jehovah's Witnesses, is it based on rationality, facts, unbiased opinion, or is it based on discrimination?
It's a rhetorical question... not posed to you.

 

[Starlight]

@Meandflower JWs seek to follow and obey God's standards of righteousness, as it is outlined in scripture.
They do not worship God based on emotions.

For example, they recognize prayer to be respectful communication with God, and because they love God, they pray to him, and no other God.
So they do not consider these things as menial.
Like Daniel, and the three Hebrew boys, they would not seek to preserve their lives, by compromising their stand for what God says is right.

The reason JWs do not take blood transfusions has to do with what God says about it.
(Genesis 9:3, 4) 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

(Deuteronomy 12:16) But you must not eat the blood; you should pour it out on the ground like water.

(Leviticus 17:10-14) 10 “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.” 13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”

From these verses, we see that blood represents life, and it is sacred to God - that is, set apart for sacred use.
Life is sacred.
Thus God specified blood has one use - to atone for sin. Thus it should not be eaten, but is to be poured out in the dust, and covered.
There was no other use, God allowed for.

Thus, the command in Acts 15, to abstain from blood, takes that principle into consideration - blood represents life, and is sacred to Jehovah - set apart for only one use.
JWs respect that.
They do not allow emotion to drive them.

Independent Lens . KNOCKING . Jehovah's Witnesses . Blood Beliefs | PBS
PeaceHealth Southwest addresses those who refuse blood transfusions
Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?

Feel free to ask any questions.

- Have many jw have died, both children and adults from denying blood?

- What if blood in this bible verse mean to not killing people? It seems like this verse talking about that is wrong to kill other humans.
#For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things:  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”-Acts 15:28, 29.

- Jw talks about the fact that medical science has come so far by treating disease without blood. But what about before medical science had come this far? Did many jw children and adults die then since they refused blood?

 

[Starlight]

This is pernicious rubbish. Blood is not generally contaminated, nor do people who have blood transfusions generally experience problems as a result. Blood is not rejected as foreign, provided the correct blood group is used and the correct cross-matching procedure carried out.

Blood transfusions save thousands of lives every year.

It is true as jw says that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

 

[Starlight]

@Meandflower JWs seek to follow and obey God's standards of righteousness, as it is outlined in scripture.
They do not worship God based on emotions.

For example, they recognize prayer to be respectful communication with God, and because they love God, they pray to him, and no other God.
So they do not consider these things as menial.
Like Daniel, and the three Hebrew boys, they would not seek to preserve their lives, by compromising their stand for what God says is right.


Feel free to ask any questions.

What if jw misinterpret the Bible verses about blood wrong? What if you are wrong about what God thinks about it ?

 

[Starlight]

Blood, in the Bible is representative of life itself. In scripture, it was used to atone for sin....(Leviticus 17:11) and the blood of Jesus is what saves mankind. It is the sacredness of blood that is dominant in the Bible. Israel was forbidden to consume blood...any blood.

For JW’s transfusions violate God’s law because it is taken into the body and if a person is unable to eat by mouth, they are often fed intravenously.....so eating can be done through the veins. We see this form of consumption also violates God's law. We are to "abstain" from blood. Look up the word "abstain" and ask if your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol because you liver was in bad shape, could you inject it straight into your blood stream? That is where it ends up after all.

For many decades it has been assumed that blood transfusions were saving people's lives and JW's copped a lot of flack for refusing such treatments......but in more recent times a thorough examination has been undertaken to study the efficacy of this long held practice.

With Jehovah's Witnesses seeking medical treatments without blood, respectful doctors found ways to operate without blood by using various techniques including cell salvage and the use of EPO and plasma volume expanders such as saline or Ringers Lactate to prevent the veins from collapsing. They were somewhat shocked to find that JW patients were recovering more quickly and with far less complications than patients who opted for blood transfusions in the same circumstances. This prompted a deeper look into what blood was actually doing "to" their patients as opposed to what they thought it was doing "for" their patients.

In many countries people sell their blood and it is dubious to say the least what contaminants are present because of their lifestyle....viruses and bacteria can sneak through a weak testing process. Every person's blood is unique like their fingerprints. Blood from another person can introduce things into the body for which it was never designed. It is no co-incidence that the human blood supply is compatible with ordinary sea water, which was used in the second world war when blood was in short supply.

The following video was put out on the Australian Government Blood Authority's website. (not associated with JW's at all) It explains what they found....and it was concerning, to say the least. Blood was actually doing more harm than good with the result that now whole hospitals are dedicated to the non-blood medical management of their patients.

For Media | National Blood Authority

Don't let them tell you that these transfusions save lives.....we have proven that they don't. The techniques developed for us are now saving many more.

Blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry, so they are not going to let the problems associated with blood transfusions rob them of their profits. This greed driven world does not let the truth be heard when profits are at stake. Only the uninformed die-hards will still promote its use.

Please watch the video and tell me what you think.....and thanks for asking.

It is true that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

 

[Starlight]

I can't seem to send you a PM. The "Start a Conversation" seems to be disabled.

It is true that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

 

[Deeje]

It is true that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

If you watched the video, you would have seen that "morbidity" (bad outcomes and complications) and "mortality" (death) are associated more with blood transfusions that with any other medical procedure....so no, blood does not save as many lives as non-blood management does because there are no real complications from using alternative techniques. More people die from having a transfusion than have ever died without one....but no doctor is going to own up to contributing to a patient's death through using something as routine as a blood transfusion. He will write out a death certificate stating another cause of death.

JW's have forced their hand on this issue.....and they were pleasantly surprised at the results.

 

[exchemist]

It is true as jw says that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

Well obviously you only need transfusions of blood or blood products in certain critical situations, often those involving serious blood loss. So it is pretty stupid to make an argument out of the fact that most treatments do not require blood. Of course that's true, but so what? Is that really what they say?

The plain fact is that blood transfusions save thousands of lives every year. It is an extremely well-attested and basic medical procedure. Trying to make a medically based argument against them is like trying to argue there is no such thing as gravitation. Only an imbecile would try. Oh, wait..........

 

[Deeje]

- Have many jw have died, both children and adults from denying blood?

As far as I know, and this is from personal experience, no adult Witness has died from refusing blood unless their underlying condition was going to take their life anyway. People have this notion that if they have blood it will save them...that is not true, many people die in spite of having blood....and now they know that blood may have contributed to the deaths.

As in the case of cancer patients, everyone has a right to refuse treatment and accept responsibility for their decision. Those with Leukemia for example, may refuse chemotherapy because there is no guarantee that it will cure the cancer and if they have had it before, may prefer not to go through it again. They are dying anyway, so all this does is hasten the inevitable and does not prolong the suffering.

As for minor children, sometimes the court will remove a child from its parent's custody to force a transfusion...which never guarantees a successful recovery. But some doctors are very respectful of our desire not to break God's law, and will try very hard not to use blood in their procedures. We are grateful for their kind assistance and there is more often than not, a very good outcome.

- What if blood in this bible verse mean to not killing people? It seems like this verse talking about that is wrong to kill other humans.
#For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things:  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”-Acts 15:28, 29.

If you look up the word "abstain" it means not to have any form of a product or activity.
There are two mentions of blood contained in Acts 15:28-29....the eating of the flesh of a strangled and thus unbled animal, and from blood in any form. So the eating of blood was forbidden. Transfusion is just another way to feed the body.

- Jw talks about the fact that medical science has come so far by treating disease without blood. But what about before medical science had come this far? Did many jw children and adults die then since they refused blood?

They were ostracized and often abused for their stand and if doctors refused to treat them without blood, then of course that left the patient with nowhere to go.....I'm sure that there were some deaths, but not from refusing blood...it was from doctors refusing to offer any other treatments.....but as time went on, doctors found ways to give us a chance, and to their surprise bloodless techniques were better.

As @nPeace has mentioned, our stand is purely scriptural, but it has proven to also be medically beneficial to "abstain from blood". We are not surprised by this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Meandflower JWs seek to follow and obey God's standards of righteousness, as it is outlined in scripture.
They do not worship God based on emotions.

For example, they recognize prayer to be respectful communication with God, and because they love God, they pray to him, and no other God.
So they do not consider these things as menial.
Like Daniel, and the three Hebrew boys, they would not seek to preserve their lives, by compromising their stand for what God says is right.

The reason JWs do not take blood transfusions has to do with what God says about it.
(Genesis 9:3, 4) 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

(Deuteronomy 12:16) But you must not eat the blood; you should pour it out on the ground like water.

(Leviticus 17:10-14) 10 “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.” 13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”

From these verses, we see that blood represents life, and it is sacred to God - that is, set apart for sacred use.
Life is sacred.
Thus God specified blood has one use - to atone for sin. Thus it should not be eaten, but is to be poured out in the dust, and covered.
There was no other use, God allowed for.

Thus, the command in Acts 15, to abstain from blood, takes that principle into consideration - blood represents life, and is sacred to Jehovah - set apart for only one use.
JWs respect that.
They do not allow emotion to drive them.

Independent Lens . KNOCKING . Jehovah's Witnesses . Blood Beliefs | PBS
PeaceHealth Southwest addresses those who refuse blood transfusions
Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?

Feel free to ask any questions.

If life is sacred and blood is the "juice" of life, then why would you not be allowed to use blood to save lives?
Note that transfusion of blood is not the same as eating blood.

 

[exchemist]

If life is sacred and blood is the "juice" of life, then why would you not be allowed to use blood to save lives?
Note that transfusion of blood is not the same as eating blood.

Interesting point. I wonder if JWs are forbidden to eat black pudding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't let them tell you that these transfusions save lives.....we have proven that they don't

Nobody has proven any such thing and the exact opposite is true.

When somebody has lost too much blood in a trauma, and this loss put him/her beyond the "point of no return", then blood transfusion is the only thing that can still save that life. And it does, every day, in all hospitals around the world.


You can continue sticking your head in the sand if you want.

Blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry, so they are not going to let the problems associated with blood transfusions rob them of their profits. This greed driven world does not let the truth be heard when profits are at stake. Only the uninformed die-hards will still promote its use.

I don't know how it works in the US, but over here, blood donations are entirely voluntary.
I give blood from time to time. I was never paid for it. They only give me a soda for afterwards.

Please watch the video and tell me what you think.....and thanks for asking.

I'm not interested in your misrepresentations and propaganda.
The video doesn't say what you think it says, as @Joe W has already pointed out to you.

 

[exchemist]

Nobody has proven any such thing and the exact opposite is true.

When somebody has lost too much blood in a trauma, and this loss put him/her beyond the "point of no return", then blood transfusion is the only thing that can still save that life. And it does, every day, in all hospitals around the world.


You can continue sticking your head in the sand if you want.



I don't know how it works in the US, but over here, blood donations are entirely voluntary.
I give blood from time to time. I was never paid for it. They only give me a soda for afterwards.

That's true in the UK too. It relies entirely on voluntary donations, given by people kind enough to want to help someone else live.

My son was keen to sign up - and now they are after him because he is O -ve, which means his blood can be used for just about anyone. He's very pleased about it - always nice to feel wanted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any foreign biological substance introduced into the blood stream will cause an immune response.

And this is why professionals don't just take blood from random sources to transfuse into random people, but instead have both undergo tests so that they can provide blood that matches.

Blood is like a liquid organ transplant which sends the immune system into action. If the heightened immune response is taking energy away from the recovery process, then it will delay that recovery or result in complications post surgery.

And if the patient lost too much blood already, he'll die anyway.

Some of the “immediate” reactions to blood are febrile or fever-producing reaction which can usually be treated successfully. However, as some health professionals in this field are aware severe febrile reactions can occur and may be sufficiently stressful to be life-threatening in certain acutely ill patients.⁠

And if the blood loss was too severe, death will be inevitable anyway.

Mismatched blood brings on a hemolytic reaction, involving rapid destruction of red blood cells, which can result in kidney failure, shock and death.

This is why professionals subject both donor blood as well as the patient to tests, to avoid such mismatches. Just like they do with organ transplants. You don't just take a kidney from a random person to put it into a random patient.

This "objection" is as silly as the "objection" from YECs, who argue that misapplying dating technology will yield absurd dates. Well... duh.

Hemolytic reactions are especially dangerous to patients under anesthesia, because the symptoms may not be noticed until it is too late. Its a mine field.

And if the blood loss is too severe, certain death is the result without a blood transfusion.

Do they?

Yes.

That is what people are told......we have proven that it isn't true.

No. Double blind studies have shown it to be true.
The only thing you have "proven", is pretty much in the same league as what YECs have "proven" regarding dating tech: that if you misapply it, it doesn't work.

And just like YECs, you are silent on the fact that this constitutes misapplication.

It's like saying that heavy medication A that is used to treat desease X, is harmfull to people who don't have desease X. So therefor people with desease X should not receive medication A.

It's absurdly ridiculous.

More people die each year from complications resulting from blood transfusions that ever die without one. That is a fact.

No, that is a lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That video is from experts in their field. It has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses.
If these health professionals don't know about blood transfusions, no one does. Take it up with them unless you want to believe those who are still trying to prop up a multi million dollar industry. Greed speaks louder than truth.

But hey...its your life.....have all the blood you wish.....we will take the safer option and the one recommended by our manufacturer.

The "safer" options being, certain death after too much blood loss.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Meandflower you might be interested in this.
43 Bloodless Surgeries in 25 Years
Sister Cecilia Alvarez, from Argentina, has dealt with severe health problems her entire life. Her first procedure was when she was only 16 days old...


1999: Five-year-old Cecilia at Juan P. Garrahan Children’s Hospital

When blood transfusions are force on children, of Jehovah's Witnesses, is it based on rationality, facts, unbiased opinion, or is it based on discrimination?
It's a rhetorical question... not posed to you.

Anecdotes are no way to argue against medical procedures that have been proven statistically to work in multiple double blind clinical studies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is true as jw says that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

It's nonsense because you can't make sweeping statements like that without getting into specifics.

For example, I'm sure you can save more lives without blood transfusions then with transfusions when the desease being treated is the flu.

There are general guidelines in medicine, sure, but in practice it's almost always a judgement call on a case by case basis with the "guidelines" serving as a starting point. Because in almost every instance, there are specifics that need to be taken into account for the specific cases.

So we need to keep that in mind when making such sweeping statements.

Having said that... all clinical studies have shown that blood transfusion in specific cases have better succes rate then without it. There are no clinical studies saying otherwise.

When a person's blood loss is too severe - certain death is the result.
Giving blood is the only hope at that point. To name one mega obvious example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reading through this thread here..... I came to a general wondering...

Perhaps @nPeace and @Deeje can shed some light on this.

What if you as a JW would donate blood "to yourself"? Is that allowed?
So you tap out blood and keep it in a personal vault. And when the day comes that you require blood, you use your own personal blood stock.

Is that allowed then?
If not, why not?

 

[nPeace]

- Have many jw have died, both children and adults from denying blood?

How does one determine that someone has died because they refused a blood transfusion?
No one can decide that. It's not possible.
However, you can ask surgeons if people die because of refusing blood, and see what they say.
You might get a few biased opinions, due to discrimination, but I think it's worth considering what these professional surgeons say.
Blood vs Bloodless
Make sure you also view the Transfusion Alternatives Series.

- What if blood in this bible verse mean to not killing people? It seems like this verse talking about that is wrong to kill other humans.
#For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things:  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”-Acts 15:28, 29.

I don't see how one can get that from those verses.
Please tell me how one can interpret abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality, as anything else.

Can you explain what abstain from sexual immorality can mean otherwise.

- Jw talks about the fact that medical science has come so far by treating disease without blood. But what about before medical science had come this far? Did many jw children and adults die then since they refused blood?

Isn't that like saying, before medical advancement in treating X, people died from X?
The fact is, people die from complications. Blood was not the life-saver. Blood was used only to fill the loss, but it has become evident that people survive on a very low hemoglobin level. So what was once taught to be the case, is now proven to be false.
People were acting based on ignorance, and lack of education.
Hear what one doctor says on this.

 

[nPeace]

What if jw misinterpret the Bible verses about blood wrong? What if you are wrong about what God thinks about it ?

Jehovah's Witnesses did not interpret that text. That is what people are trying to do. The text is clear.
What does it mean to abstain from idols?

It is true that treatments for diseases without blood save as many as blood transfusions?

I am not sure I heard any person say that.
I did hear that there has been a distinct shift from blood transfusions to no transfusions at all, since it has become evident that bloodless surgery is more effective, and safer than blood transfusions, which carry considerably great risks.
If you watch the videos I linked to, and do more research on bloodless medicine, I am sure you will get the answers you are seeking on this subject.
Just be sure to get credible information, rather than biased opinions.