Jw and blood transfusjon

[capumetu]

Blood transfusions, when medically appropriate, are medical care.

Refusing a blood transfusion when it's medically indicated is refusing medical care.

Edit: and the JW record and policies around sexual abuse of children suggests to me that, on the whole, JWs care less about the well-being of their children than average.


And the complicating factor in all of this, of course, is that just because a JW proclaims loudly in public that they would never accept a blood transfusion for themselves or their family, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would actually refuse one when their child's life is on the line and nobody would know but their family and the hospital staff.

Some JWs accept blood transfusions and get found out; it stands to reason that there are more that accepted them and didn't get found out.

Jehovah's witnesses do not sexually abuse their children, and you offered no evidence to a greater percentage of our children dying over other faiths. I knew you couldn't you simply speak from opinion. Have a great day sir.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jehovah's witnesses do not sexually abuse their children,

Some do, like in any organization.

Where the JWs differ from many other organizations is that the Watchtower Society effectively supports these abusers with policies against reporting the abuse to the police.

and you offered no evidence to a greater percentage of our children dying over other faiths. I knew you couldn't you simply speak from opinion. Have a great day sir.

I'm not sure who keeps track of stats like that. Do you?

I also probably couldn't find stats that say that children whose parents let them play with chainsaws die at a greater rate than children whose parents don't. Would this make playing with chainsaws a good idea?

 

[Deeje]

Where the JWs differ from many other organizations is that the Watchtower Society effectively supports these abusers with policies against reporting the abuse to the police.

Your attitude is typical of a true bigot. Ears closed to anything that might mean that JW’s aren’t the dangerous cult you believe them to be.

Our child abuse policy is on our website and statistically that crime is low in our ranks compared with other groups with children. Even the Boy Scouts have a worse record of child abuse than we do. Why single us out? I think we know....

The truth is, many of the cases mention in enquires were in past decades when the judicial system did not handle these cases with any regard for the effect on the children, who were forced to face their abusers in court. The process was often more traumatic for the children than the original offence, because lawyers were permitted to cross examine them and often got their clients off with no regard for the victim. Some chose not to go down that track.
In times past, it was not considered a serious crime by the judicial system, like it is now. Only when the serious impact on victims was recognised, (often decades after the crime) were the laws updated.

Our elders are not the police and accusations do not automatically mean guilt. Just as the police need evidence or witnesses to crimes, child abuse is very difficult to prove. There are usually no witnesses and the children are usually frightened into silence.
These rock spiders lurk in every organisation. They are never easy to spot....often the one you’d least expect.

I think you need to get real about the accusations you are making.
We are not an organisation who isolates their children (no Sunday School, no youth camps, etc.) so no occasions when children are routinely separated from their parents. We are naturally trusting of our brotherhood, but pedophiles do not look or sound like the disgusting criminals that they are. This issue is a legal and emotional minefield.

I also probably couldn't find stats that say that children whose parents let them play with chainsaws die at a greater rate than children whose parents don't. Would this make playing with chainsaws a good idea?

You also need to understand about blood transfusions and how that affects our children. You wrongly accuse us of refusing medical treatment....that is not true. We will always seek medical treatment, but have one issue with the use of blood, which is now not even mentioned where doctors are up to date on the latest techniques. It s now a non issue....except among the ignorant. The media never lets the truth get in the way of a good story, especially where children are involved.

Some ill informed doctors will apply to courts to take children from their parents’ custody and force transfusions on them. Other more informed doctors will try their best to treat the children of JW’s without blood and do so with great success.
Any doctor who, in this day and age, insists on blood transfusions is a dinosaur in their own profession and like yourself, should be ashamed of their ignorance.

Blood transfusions have been identified as one of the most dangerous routine procedures that are carried out in hospitals. I have posted a video many times that is found on the Australian Government’s website. I can only assume that you never watched it.

Here it is again..
For Media | National Blood Authority

You can have all the blood you wish, but like yourself, you don’t want our views forced on you, so don’t force your ignorant opinions on us....OK? You could not be more wrong.

 

[capumetu]

Some do, like in any organization.

Where the JWs differ from many other organizations is that the Watchtower Society effectively supports these abusers with policies against reporting the abuse to the police.


I'm not sure who keeps track of stats like that. Do you?

I also probably couldn't find stats that say that children whose parents let them play with chainsaws die at a greater rate than children whose parents don't. Would this make playing with chainsaws a good idea?

See, that is why we raise our children by scripture, as a protection.

No I don't know of anyone who takes stats like that, however I am a firm believer that living the faith protects us from many harmful things.

As I said, there are no JW child abusers, that is not allowed by any Scripture I know of, do you know of any? Jesus stated that by their fruits you will recognize them, if one among our ranks committed that sin, they would be put out from among us, of course Jehovah allows a person to repent, but even so since we cannot read hearts, any who were suspect of such misconduct would be watched very closely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your attitude is typical of a true bigot. Ears closed to anything that might mean that JW’s aren’t the dangerous cult you believe them to be.

I don't use the term "cult" generally, but if you're going to argue with a straight face that denying medical care to children and sheltering abusers - both on an industrial scale - doesn't put make a religion dangerous, then I'm going to take this as a sign that you don't know what "dangerous" means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Our child abuse policy is on our website and statistically that crime is low in our ranks compared with other groups with children. Even the Boy Scouts have a worse record of child abuse than we do. Why single us out? I think we know....

FYI: I'm not singling you out. I condemn any organization that shelters child abusers.

I probably have more condemnation for the Catholic Church than I do for the Watchtower Society, and if you think you've ever seen me praise the Boy Scouts of America's track record on abuse, I invite you to give your head a shake.

... but this thread is about the JWs, so we're talking about the JWs.

 

[nPeace]

No, my argument is that the JW position is not only murderous but hypocritical.

The evidence shows you have no argument. Just a biased position, opinion, or worldview.
If you did have an argument it would stand up.
Instead, it flops in the face of facts.

 

[nPeace]

Nothing wrong with bloodless surgery in the right context. It's one tool in the toolbox, just like blood transfusion.




https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...od-transfusion-death-quebec-coroner-1.4401101

Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment

Man who almost died after refusing blood transfusion hits out at 'harmful' Jehovah’s Witness teachings


I'd say that the one who should be worrying about their credibility is the one is you.

Don't think that I haven't noticed how every time this comes up, you try to switch the debate from "are blood transfusions useful and safe?" (spoiler: they are) to "is bloodless surgery useful and safe?"

Bloodless surgery is fine as one tool in the toolbox, but:

- bloodless surgery isn't always the best approach.
- blood transfusions are used for a lot more than surgery.

... but I'd bet that you already realized this.

People do love to hear stories.
Sad that they accept these stories simply because they have a bias against a group - discrimination.
No one has the ability to prove or even demonstrate that someone died from refusing blood.
What did they do... revive the person, pump a few liters of blood in them, watch to see what happened, then declare... "See! The blood saved them."
JWs certainty enjoy freedom from such ignorance. That's a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

 

[nPeace]

While it's tragic when an adult freely chooses for themselves to die of a treatable illness out of superstition, what puts this doctrine into "evil" territory is that JWs will also refuse medical treatment for their children.

These are all lies.
JWs seek medical care because they want to live.
Is it not better to speak truth? Yes, people do think that smearing others by slander ruins their good reputation, but that never works for their good.
The good always come to see the truth. Jesus said, "Wisdom is prove righteous by its works... or all its children."
In other words, one cannot hide the truth from those deserving it. It's a fruitless pursuit.

 

[nPeace]

Blood transfusions, when medically appropriate, are medical care.

Refusing a blood transfusion when it's medically indicated is refusing medical care.

Edit: and the JW record and policies around sexual abuse of children suggests to me that, on the whole, JWs care less about the well-being of their children than average.

Wait a minute.
So all the people who refuse blood transfusions are refusing medical care?
How long are you going to keep up with this charade of unscientific, non-factual, inaccurate ... far from the truth, misguided, misinformation?
The doctors who treat patients - including non-JWs - without blood, do so out of respect for the person's choice.
Thankfully, those doctors do not show bias, and discriminate against people because of personal feelings.
Don't you think that's a good thing, and shows that they are not selfish - thinking only of how they feel?
I think they should be commended.
I mean, how would you feel if someone force you to attend church, and kiss the statue of a Christ figure on a cross... or worst?

And the complicating factor in all of this, of course, is that just because a JW proclaims loudly in public that they would never accept a blood transfusion for themselves or their family, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would actually refuse one when their child's life is on the line and nobody would know but their family and the hospital staff.

Some JWs accept blood transfusions and get found out; it stands to reason that there are more that accepted them and didn't get found out.

 

[nPeace]

Some do, like in any organization.

Where the JWs differ from many other organizations is that the Watchtower Society effectively supports these abusers with policies against reporting the abuse to the police.

This is not true.
Where are you getting your information from? I just had a thought.
Anyway, if you read any of the WTs prior to these cases, you would see that the GB stated that parents have the right to take these matters to the authorities.
They never encourage covering up serious crimes.
If individuals were truthfully guilty of that, that would be what an individual chose to do, and not the GB.
After all, humans are not infallible, and JWs do not claim to be.

I'm not sure who keeps track of stats like that. Do you?

I also probably couldn't find stats that say that children whose parents let them play with chainsaws die at a greater rate than children whose parents don't. Would this make playing with chainsaws a good idea?

We can get those stats, I believe, but it would be primarily from a minority of reliable sources. I'll search them out for you.
Aside from that... Did you know?
At the individual level of analysis, evidence has accumulated in support of the hypothesis that persons who are most religious commit crimes at lower rates than those who are least religious.
That's something, isn't it?

 

[nPeace]

I don't use the term "cult" generally, but if you're going to argue with a straight face that denying medical care to children and sheltering abusers - both on an industrial scale - doesn't put make a religion dangerous, then I'm going to take this as a sign that you don't know what "dangerous" means.

"denying medical care to children"?
Say that again. That's far from the truth, and I think you know that statement is a lie... but you seem to want to do that. Why?
Is it to convince anyone on these thread?
That's useless.
Is it giving you a sense of satisfaction? How does that work?

Not having a shred of proof for allegations, but making them, nonetheless, is not a good reflection of character. Is it?
I'm certain you would not like anyone doing that to your family.
Are you sure you want to continue these baseless assertions?

"sheltering abusers"?
How was that done? Give us one example, and quote the source please.
Let's see some evidence, rather than assertions.

 

[nPeace]

FYI: I'm not singling you out. I condemn any organization that shelters child abusers.

I probably have more condemnation for the Catholic Church than I do for the Watchtower Society, and if you think you've ever seen me praise the Boy Scouts of America's track record on abuse, I invite you to give your head a shake.

... but this thread is about the JWs, so we're talking about the JWs.

Can you name one entity that has not had child abusers, and claimed to be covering up those abuses?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wait a minute.
So all the people who refuse blood transfusions are refusing medical care?

When the blood transfusion is medically indicated, yes.

How long are you going to keep up with this charade of unscientific, non-factual, inaccurate ... far from the truth, misguided, misinformation?
The doctors who treat patients - including non-JWs - without blood, do so out of respect for the person's choice.

Often, without blood, there is no treatment.

Thankfully, those doctors do not show bias, and discriminate against people because of personal feelings.
Don't you think that's a good thing, and shows that they are not selfish - thinking only of how they feel?
I think they should be commended.
I mean, how would you feel if someone force you to attend church, and kiss the statue of a Christ figure on a cross... or worst?

It's important for doctors to respect the wishes of their patients. This doesn't mean that the patient's wishes are wise.

Blood transfusions aren't only needed for surgery or trauma. If you have leukemia or are undergoing chemotherapy, your body may not be producing enough red blood cells; the treatment for this condition is to provide you with more red blood cells through a blood transfusion. Refusing a transfusion in cases like this means refusing treatment to prevent what could be serious or even fatal complications.

Blood Transfusions for People with Cancer

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you name one entity that has not had child abusers, and claimed to be covering up those abuses?

I can probably name several, but more important than that: most organizations, when caught in a sexual abuse cover-up, make some sort of attempt to fix their policies. They don't double down and insist that the policies that led to the cover-up were required by God:

The Two Witness Rule - an open letter | Jehovah's Witnesses

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People do love to hear stories.
Sad that they accept these stories simply because they have a bias against a group - discrimination.
No one has the ability to prove or even demonstrate that someone died from refusing blood.
What did they do... revive the person, pump a few liters of blood in them, watch to see what happened, then declare... "See! The blood saved them."
JWs certainty enjoy freedom from such ignorance. That's a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

I know I'm not in this but here is some info of death from refusal of blood transfusion. Severe anemia associated with increased risk of death and myocardial ischemia in patients declining blood transfusion - PubMed

Conclusions: Severe anemia is associated with increased myocardial ischemia and mortality in patients declining transfusion, with risk increasing with decreasing nadir Hb.

You're right that so far researched there have been complications. So it's a families medical concerned and right to refuse. Some illnesses treatment can postpone life but blood transfusions could be the best option regardless.

The problem is not whether a family choose this treatment. Its trying to justify and downplay medical successes of blood transfusions based on JW morals.

This means that even if doctors (all) support it instead of just saying no because of the bible you try to justify it by science.

It makes your case fall flat. Refusal should be based on the condition of the parent, doctors, etc as a unit. Since the bible trump's all, yes. They do let their loved ones die because a. They don't trust docs and b. Their Bible tells them.

It doesn't mean you guys don't care for your family member. It just means to the rest of us that family member could have lived. I would assume god saving a child through medical intervention overweighs letting him die because blood was eaten (lbw) and god says no blood should be used.

Another but I can't debate it I read here on RF is understanding what blood transfusions are medically. But it seems that you've (JW) see and define it differently.

In my opinion, it doesn't mean JW are all killers. It just means you morality focus more on what the bible at the expense of one's death and not the context in concern for one's life. So be but these are my thoughts.

 

[Deeje]

I don't use the term "cult" generally, but if you're going to argue with a straight face that denying medical care to children and sheltering abusers - both on an industrial scale - doesn't put make a religion dangerous, then I'm going to take this as a sign that you don't know what "dangerous" means.

You really are determined to hang on to your ignorance, aren’t you?....it’s bigoted and hateful lies, but I don’t suppose you care about that.

If you want to talk about “dangerous” “on an industrial scale”.....just listen to people like yourself. (Matthew 5:11-12) It’s very obvious that you do.

You are not open to hear anything that will change your mind....so be it. But you have to understand what “slander” is, and why there are laws against it. Would you like to be a victim of it yourself?

Twisted half truths are worse than lies, but don’t let that bother you.....it’s not hard to see what trough your nose is in.....


I feel sorry for you actually.

 

[nPeace]

When the blood transfusion is medically indicated, yes.


Often, without blood, there is no treatment.


It's important for doctors to respect the wishes of their patients. This doesn't mean that the patient's wishes are wise.

Blood transfusions aren't only needed for surgery or trauma. If you have leukemia or are undergoing chemotherapy, your body may not be producing enough red blood cells; the treatment for this condition is to provide you with more red blood cells through a blood transfusion. Refusing a transfusion in cases like this means refusing treatment to prevent what could be serious or even fatal complications.

Blood Transfusions for People with Cancer

Thank you for providing some form of information other than wild assertions.
This was one of the first things I saw in your article... Why people with cancer might need blood transfusions
What does that say to you?
Does it not say that people might not need blood transfusions?
Does it not suggest that physicians will have varying views on this?

What if you were told, by a surgeon...
"There is no disease, that a surgeon cannot, and have not treated successfully without blood transfusion."
Would you dismiss them as people who "don't know what they are talking about"?

I think we should give those professional surgeons the due credit, and respect. Not try to diminish them.
What do you think?

I also think it's important to be opened to knowledge, and not delight in willful ignorance. However, that up to us, isn't it?

Personalized acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment let me stay true to my faith
When I was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia — a type of blood cancer — I knew that my case was going to be a tough one. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I am not willing to accept whole blood products, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment sometimes includes red blood cell/platelet transfusions and/or stem cell transplants. Compromising my faith has never been an option, so one of my first concerns was finding a hospital that would respect my wishes.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia is a fast-growing, aggressive form of cancer, so I also knew I needed to act quickly. I wanted the best and most innovative care possible, and I knew I would get that at MD Anderson. Thanks to MD Anderson’s leukemia doctors and their willingness to be creative, I’m now in remission — and the bloodless protocol they developed for me is already helping other patients.

A Jehovah’s Witness with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Successfully Treated with an Epigenetic Drug, Azacitidine: A Clue for Development of Anti-AML Therapy Requiring Minimum Blood Transfusions
Abstract
Therapy for acute leukemia in Jehovah’s Witnesses patients is very challenging because of their refusal to accept blood transfusions, a fundamental supportive therapy for this disease. These patients are often denied treatment for fear of treatment-related death. We present the first Jehovah’s Witness patient with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated successfully with azacitidine. After achieving complete remission (CR) with one course of azacitidine therapy, the patient received conventional postremission chemotherapy and remained in CR. In the case of patients who accept blood transfusions, there are reports indicating the treatment of AML patients with azacitidine. In these reports, azacitidine therapy was less toxic, including hematoxicity, compared with conventional chemotherapy. The CR rate in azacitidine-treated patients was inadequate; however, some characteristics could be useful in predicting azacitidine responders. The present case is useful for treating Jehovah’s Witnesses patients with AML and provides a clue for anti-AML therapy requiring minimum blood transfusions.

What about sickle cell anemia?

Did you notice that some doctors refused to administer alternative treatment, out of fear - fear the patient dies?
That really is informative.
Does that explain why Witness patients die?
Yes. It does. I personally know of a case where a bleeding patent was not treated because they refused blood transfusion, and it was claimed that the patient died because they refused a blood transfusion.
That was not the truth.
They died because professionalism was lacking... and that's the case with deaths among JWs.

Thankfully many doctors are stepping up to the plate, and willing to be educated, and grow in their expertise, and this is helping save more lives, as doctors become more efficient at their job. Thanks to JWs, and their God, Jehovah, who gives wisdom to those seeking him.

 

[nPeace]

I can probably name several, but more important than that: most organizations, when caught in a sexual abuse cover-up, make some sort of attempt to fix their policies. They don't double down and insist that the policies that led to the cover-up were required by God:

The Two Witness Rule - an open letter | Jehovah's Witnesses

Okay, so you have no examples, and no source.
You just want to attack JWs' beliefs Agenda noted.

 

[nPeace]

I know I'm not in this but here is some info of death from refusal of blood transfusion. Severe anemia associated with increased risk of death and myocardial ischemia in patients declining blood transfusion - PubMed

Conclusions: Severe anemia is associated with increased myocardial ischemia and mortality in patients declining transfusion, with risk increasing with decreasing nadir Hb.

You're right that so far researched there have been complications. So it's a families medical concerned and right to refuse. Some illnesses treatment can postpone life but blood transfusions could be the best option regardless.

The problem is not whether a family choose this treatment. Its trying to justify and downplay medical successes of blood transfusions based on JW morals.

This means that even if doctors (all) support it instead of just saying no because of the bible you try to justify it by science.

It makes your case fall flat. Refusal should be based on the condition of the parent, doctors, etc as a unit. Since the bible trump's all, yes. They do let their loved ones die because a. They don't trust docs and b. Their Bible tells them.

It doesn't mean you guys don't care for your family member. It just means to the rest of us that family member could have lived. I would assume god saving a child through medical intervention overweighs letting him die because blood was eaten (lbw) and god says no blood should be used.

Another but I can't debate it I read here on RF is understanding what blood transfusions are medically. But it seems that you've (JW) see and define it differently.

In my opinion, it doesn't mean JW are all killers. It just means you morality focus more on what the bible at the expense of one's death and not the context in concern for one's life. So be but these are my thoughts.

Thanks for a good article.
They are risks in almost everything, including non-blood issues.

Do you agree that depending on which part of the world one lives, they can face a greater risk of death, regardless of whether they get medical treatment or not?
Some of the best treatments are unavailable to probably a greater percent of the world's population.
So people will die - treatment or no treatment.

However, they are surgeons committed to their patients' needs, and seek to broaden their knowledge base, and use methods that may be unorthodox... but effective.
Everyone may not be privileged to that, but Jehovah's organization is a worldwide organization that demonstrates care for every member.
Hence an element in that organization has help surgeons around the world to utilize method beneficial to JWs stance on blood.
We are thankful for this.

Center for Transfusion-Free Medicine for Cancer Patients
We are one of the only sites in the nation to successfully perform high dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue using bloodless techniques.

We treat patients who do not wish to accept blood transfusions for religious, personal, medical or ethical reasons. Our program incorporates the expertise of highly skilled surgeons, anesthesiologists, hematologists, nurses and other medical specialists and professional support staff with experience in "no blood" medical management.

I believe that in the years to come, better health care will be available to most people, and many researchers will be thankful for it, since it will prevent many health risks and deaths.

What am I trying to justify by science? Please help me with this since I hear it being said, but have no clue about it.