Jw and blood transfusjon

[ppp]

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

You are just doubling down.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.
View attachment 46216

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.

I'm saying backing up your beliefs (the bible) by science doesn't work. It's one thing to say "No, my dying child won't take blood transfusions because of the bible" and a whole different thing to say "No, because science says X many people die of blood transfusions this justifies the bible and therefore, I will not grant it."

Thousands of families consult doctors about their loved ones and decide what treatment is best for them based on a lot of sources; nothing wrong with that. The problem is you (generalizing) using the sources as a justification of your biblical morals....

It makes it seem like JW doesn't care for their loved ones lives not because they decide to make sound decision about medical treatment but because the bible tells them so. People understand the former justification but not many the latter. If you kept them separate, then it would just be a debate about the bible's definition of blood. But since science is brought up to justify the bible, that's where the problem lies.

I'll have a read over your post in a minute. I just don't believe you guys don't care for your family members, just your religious morals tend to say otherwise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

Thanks. It took me a good while to find it. Mostly there was just bashing JW or every other thing that can go wrong with blood transfusions. It gives the impression that blood transfusions don't work when it depends on the patient situation rather than google search.

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.

You know, that's a good point. It does make your point a bit more complicated. In the U.S. we do pretty well with blood transfusions but don't quote me on it. The bible is pretty much the same everywhere in the world, give or take, but it does depend on the location. So, I'm not sure how science can justify or support what you believe from the bible. Are you supporting your biblical views on blood transfusion by the science of it?

People live treatment or no treatment. So, it depends on the situation.

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.

I don't doubt that. Doctors are ethically and legally should/must respect JW opinions about the use of blood. The problem that seems to be the debate is not necessarily that, but the morals itself.

So, if JW child is dying and has no other option but blood transfusion (and I know there are exclusions, but stick with this for a minute), they would let their child die at the expense of obeying the bible. That's the problem.

I know there are other options, statistics, and all of that but that's shifting the goal post.

Do you believe your child (if you have one, a child) should die if the only thing that would save them in this example would be a blood transfusion?

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.

True. Doctors don't ignore patients just because they don't want to receive blood. The point is about JW denying treatment because of their morals not because of doctors and what other people say or don't say on the topic.

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.

I hope so for a lot of conditions. For now, some are questionable but can save lives. I'm thankful that thousands of people with temporal lobe epilepsy have a 80% chance living (US standards so far) on the most complicated brain surgery.... but I wouldn't be here or wouldn't be in my right state of mind if I refused it for moral reasons as the prime and final determinator of care.

Same with blood transfusions to put my view in perspective for you.

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.

Oh. You're saying "The bible says blood transfusions are wrong because of X" how so? "Because science says A,B, and C."

Unless I'm wrong? Would you accept blood transfusions for your hypothetical child if you were not JW? (Assuming for a minute the treatment was safe enough to consider it)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@nPeace.

I know there are exclusions and facts to the contrary but that's shifting the goal post. My main question is if you had a child dying and the only way to save him or her is to get a blood transfusion, would you do it?

Assuming that all medical advice is sound and assuming you're not going by just statistics and google search, but based on your child's current situation, symptoms, side affects, and doctors advice that/who treat it.

If you do let your child die based on your morals, that's why people say you don't care for your child. If you let the child live by accepting the transfusion, you break your morals at the expense of your child's life.

We don't "know" what happens when we die, so you wouldn't know if your child sleeps forever or goes to god-so that's not in the equation either.

My point in a nutshell.

 

[nPeace]

@Unveiled Artist
Do you recall our conversation which we had on this before?
Same question, asked differently, again.
Same answer, put differently.

My question again, which you did not answer... What am I trying to justify by science?
Sorry @Unveiled Artist, I overlooked your answer. No. You are wrong. Where did I say "The bible says blood transfusions are wrong because science says A,B, and C."?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Unveiled Artist
Do you recall our conversation which we had on this before?
Same question, asked differently, again.
Same answer, put differently.

My question again, which you did not answer... What am I trying to justify by science?
Sorry @Unveiled Artist, I overlooked your answer. No. You are wrong. Where did I say "The bible says blood transfusions are wrong because science says A,B, and C."?

Are you supporting your belief that blood transfusions are wrong based on the bible?

Medical decisions are based on the patient's situation, doctors advice, and things of that nature. So, it's generalizing to say transfusions work or doesn't work given each individual is different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

How does this prove that some people do benefit from blood transfusions as their only means of treatment (when other less extensive options are inappropriate)?

Making up a number: 9,999 people who have survived without blood transfusions and 1,000 who have not doesn't make either side more valuable than the other. They're just statistics.

It depends on the patients situation, doctors advice, treatment, and condition. I would hope a person wouldn't look at statistics as the main way to determine if a treatment is appropriate.

The subject isn't about statistics but how JW morals prevent their (say) loved ones from getting blood transfusions that in "that love one's case" would be the only appropriate method to save his life. Would you let the child die?

 

[nPeace]

@Unveiled Artist Are you saying you made up that part about me saying "The bible says blood transfusions are wrong because science says A,B, and C."?

 

[Deeje]

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 n a families medical concerned 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.

It is based on God's law, just as it is wrong to commit immorality....the death penalty was mandated for any one who disregarded the sacredness of blood or who used their reproductive organs out of wedlock. Did you never wonder why it was called "wedlock"?

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 medyc intervention overweighs letting him die because blood was eaten (lbw) and god says no blood should be used.

There are no circumstances where blood would save anyone if alternative measures (tried and tested on JW patients) were implemented. It is assumed that people live when they have blood, but so many die even after a transfusion.....it isn't a guarantee of living...in fact it can cause more harm than good if you watched the video I posted. "Morbidity" and "mortality" are more connected to blood transfusions than to any other routine medical procedure. This is what the experts are saying.

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

In my opinion, it doesn't mean JW are all killers. It just means you morality focus more on what the bible and not life. So be but these are my thoughts.

We can speak confidently from our own experience. Blood has never saved the life of a JW....but refusing blood has....it has also seen many Witness patients recover more quickly and with way less complications. The number of times our brothers and sisters have been told point blank that they will die without blood.....and yet if appropriate alternative treatments were administered, none of them did. No doctor worth his credentials would refuse to treat a Witness patient today with what is known by those who keep abreast of the current knowledge and medical techniques.

The attitude of doctors towards blood transfusion is changing dramatically as they see the success rate among our brotherhood. There are less complications leading to death among JW patients, and that is a fact....not wishful thinking. Why would they set up whole hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine if the results were not proven to be better than what they were doing before?

We have copped a lot of flack over the years because of our stand on blood....so it was not until the challenge of HIV in the 80's that doctors began to realize the dangers of blood transfusions. All the ways to spread AIDS involved violations of God's laws. Blood was one of the worst offenders.

It was a real vindication for God's law when the blood issue went away because it was well established that blood was NOT a necessary treatment in about 90% of cases.....doctors were putting people's lives at risk for what?...a routine procedure that was found to be more dangerous and life threatening than they ever imagined?

This issue is not even relevant anymore.....why is it being rehashed? More doctors than ever are now on our side, we held to our scriptural stand .....and the stats prove that more importantly, God's laws were right all along and that our position was not unreasonable.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you using your opinions on medical issues on scripture or using scripture to validate your medical views?

It is based on God's law, just as it is wrong to commit immorality....the death penalty was mandated for any one who disregarded the sacredness of blood or who used their reproductive organs out of wedlock. Did you never wonder why it was called "wedlock"?

No. I was reading on this thread, I think, about how you guys feel blood transfusions are "eating blood" as one would had done during sacrificial meals.

Some JW morals I understand, but that...

I disagree with the death penalty and have not too much to say on it since it disturbs me too much. All medical procedures that help with life no matter how risky they may be, I do support. Has more to do with the patient's condition, doctors advice, long term, and short term affects. As well as making sure the patient and family know the risks and benefits of the procedure.

There are no circumstances where blood would save anyone if alternative measures (tried and tested on JW patients) were implemented. It is assumed that people live when they have blood, but so many die even after a transfusion.....it isn't a guarantee of living...in fact it can cause more harm than good if you watched the video I posted. "Morbidity" and "mortality" are more connected to blood transfusions than to any other routine medical procedure. This is what the experts are saying.

But I'm sure there are someone in the world where millions of people live. So, that's painting a broad stroke there. It's one thing to disagree with the procedure, but how does this back up what you're saying? Many people disagree with medical science but I'm sure they disagree because of medical reasons not using them to justify moral ones.

It's dangerous, yes. No one says it's not. It's the morals surrounding it. If you had a child dying and "there are no other" options available than a blood transfusion, would you let your child die?

I know there are other options but they aren't relevant to my point.

We can speak confidently from our own experience. Blood has never saved the life of a JW....but refusing blood has....it has also seen many Witness patients recover more quickly and with way less complications. The number of times our brothers and sisters have been told point blank that they will die without blood.....and yet if appropriate alternative treatments were administered, none of them did. No doctor worth his credentials would refuse to treat a Witness patient today with what is known by those who keep abreast of the current knowledge and medical techniques.

It hasn't because they are JW or because they're (and others who aren't JW) haven't benefit from it because there are other options available?

"Majority JW did this.. " doesn't prove anything. It just means you have confirmation bias to one side (researching and finding majority of sites say complications and go from that). That's not a good way to determine what's best for a person's health.

I get that you may not take it because of that being "one of" many factors to take into consideration of a loved one dying. But that as a sole justification of denying it "and" using that to back up JW morals sounds a bit off.

The attitude of doctors towards blood transfusion is changing dramatically as they see the success rate among our brotherhood. There are less complications leading to death among JW patients, and that is a fact....not wishful thinking. Why would they set up whole hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine if the results were not proven to be better than what they were doing before?

Blood transfusions are very risky. That doesn't mean there isn't success, it just means doctors most likely will find the best alternative and if there "are none" then they would suggest a blood transfusion. Some deny it JW or not (in the link) and others do so because of moral reasons despite medical advice.

It really has less to do with whether one is JW or not.

We have copped a lot of flack over the years because of our stand on blood....so it was not until the challenge of HIV in the 80's that doctors began to realize the dangers of blood transfusions. All the ways to spread AIDS involved violations of God's laws. Blood was one of the worst offenders.

Yeah, I can see why. It's a medical intervention that saves lives whether it's 90 dead and 10 alive or vis versa. Doctors wouldn't use it if it did not help at all.

Spreading of AIDs during the epidemic had a lot of issues. Even briefly mentioning, they used to call AIDS "GRID, for gay-related immunodeficiency" in 1982 (so looked up). Point-so I'm a bit skeptical of what they discovered back then.

We're still learning so it's fine to be skeptical of blood transfusions as with any medical treatment. But based on your morals?

"IF" there were successful blood transfusions and everything was fine, what would be the basis of your refusal assuming that you care about your child's life?

It was a real vindication for God's law when the blood issue went away because it was well established that blood was NOT a necessary treatment in about 90% of cases.....doctors were putting people's lives at risk for what?...a routine procedure that was found to be more dangerous and life threatening than they ever imagined?

It's a risky decision. I'm not sure doctors just throw it in just because. They do agree with you that it's a risk. If it didn't work at all, they wouldn't use it.

This issue is not even relevant anymore.....why is it being rehashed? More doctors than ever are now on our side, we held to our scriptural stand .....and the stats prove that more importantly, God's laws were right all along and that our position was not unreasonable.

On your side?

They may agree with the high risk part but not everyone knows and believes that blood transfusion (and other medical treatments) are risky because of god. Doctors aren't religious biased.

Which brings me back to supporting your moral arguments with science.

Edit.

The reason people say JW don't care about their child's life is because, whether science supports the bible or not (if one likes), if there are no other treatments available, that JW family will let their child die.

I know there are exceptions to the rule, but that's shifting the goal post.

 

[Deeje]

Are you using your opinions on medical issues on scripture or using scripture to validate your medical views?

Regardless of the medical views, we are commanded by our God to “abstain from blood”. It’s a simple statement and since blood transfusions are a 20th century practice, no Bible verse is going to address it. Since being “fed” in a hospital situation can mean an intravenous infusion, we see no difference in the importance of the law, just because of a change in the method of consumption.

No. I was reading on this thread, I think, about how you guys feel blood transfusions are "eating blood" as one would had done during sacrificial meals.

Eating blood was forbidden even to the extent of eating the flesh of a strangled (and hence not properly bled) animal. Consumption of blood, regardless of the method was against God’s law. It was a capital offence.

I disagree with the death penalty and have not too much to say on it since it disturbs me too much. All medical procedures that help with life no matter how risky they may be, I do support. Has more to do with the patient's condition, doctors advice, long term, and short term affects. As well as making sure the patient and family know the risks and benefits of the procedure.

Yes, it has a lot to do with the patient’s condition and as stated in the video link I provided, there is NO condition that warrants a blood transfusion if the doctor is up to speed on his methods....not even in trauma cases. We are living proof that blood transfusions are not a “necessary” procedure in any case. Patients will die because doctors are not keeping up with the latest medical practice. Dinosaurs do not belong in medicine.

It's dangerous, yes. No one says it's not. It's the morals surrounding it. If you had a child dying and "there are no other" options available than a blood transfusion, would you let your child die?

What is with the child dying scenario? We do not sit back and allow our children to die. We will find a doctor who will treat them without blood. There are many such doctors these days, but some “old school” doctors insist on using blood because they always have, and it’s convenient...not because the patient really needs it. Alternatives are a much safer option, so why resort to the more risky option if you don’t have to?

It’s about the qualifications of the doctor at the end of the day. If any doctor wants to rely on blood transfusions, then he/she is not much of a doctor.

I know there are other options but they aren't relevant to my point.

They are relevant to our lives.....not just this life, but also to our relationship with our God who does list his requirements in his word. No one is forcing you to comply with them. What you do is entirely up to you. But if you know the risks then you must accept the consequences of your own choices.

It hasn't because they are JW or because they're (and others who aren't JW) haven't benefit from it because there are other options available?

We thank God for the options because they are so much safer. You can take the risk if you wish.

I get that you may not take it because of that being "one of" many factors to take into consideration of a loved one dying. But that as a sole justification of denying it "and" using that to back up JW morals sounds a bit off.

A lot may sound a “bit off” to someone who is trying to justify something that is no longer justifiable. As I said this is no longer an issue for us. Whole hospitals dedicated to non-blood medical management have sprung up all over the world. Why would that be if blood was a necessary medical intervention?

Blood transfusions are very risky. That doesn't mean there isn't success, it just means doctors most likely will find the best alternative and if there "are none" then they would suggest a blood transfusion.

There is never a question of “if there is none”...there are always alternatives as we have proven. No one “needs” a blood transfusion these days. It’s a medical dinosaur. What doctors have learned about blood and how much tolerance the human body has to low hemoglobin levels has changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Doctors who have kept up to date will implement the alternatives as a first line of defence.

Yeah, I can see why. It's a medical intervention that saves lives whether it's 90 dead and 10 alive or vis versa. Doctors wouldn't use it if it did not help at all.

Oh but they will....try telling an old school doctor that his practices over the last 30 years have been updated. He will do what he has always done. You will find that many are a proud and stubborn lot.

We're still learning so it's fine to be skeptical of blood transfusions as with any medical treatment. But based on your morals?

Based on our morals? It’s based on the laws of the one who created us.....you can choose to ignore him, that is your choice.

"IF" there were successful blood transfusions and everything was fine, what would be the basis of your refusal assuming that you care about your child's life?

We aren’t talking about “ifs” because there aren’t any.
We care deeply about our children so that is why we would seek out a doctor that cared about the dangers of blood transfusions, more than they cared about old habits that have been found to be life-threatening, rather than life-saving. Do you get that? We are grateful that doctors cared enough to try other methods and found them to be more successful. Now they are helping many more people, not just JW’s.

They may agree with the high risk part but not everyone knows and believes that blood transfusion (and other medical treatments) are risky because of god. Doctors aren't religious biased.

Which brings me back to supporting your moral arguments with science.

It’s not a moral argument. It’s a stated law like “do not kill” or “do not commit adultery”....to consume blood is against God’s law so we will not do it, under any circumstances. You can if you wish, but God’s law has been vindicated by science.

The reason people say JW don't care about their child's life is because, whether science supports the bible or not (if one likes), if there are no other treatments available, that JW family will let their child die.

Hogwash. That is pure emotional claptrap. We will seek better medical treatment because we care.....seriously.
This whole argument is moot because it no longer exists in the light of modern medical advancement. Please try to keep up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Regardless of the medical views, we are commanded by our God to “abstain from blood”. It’s a simple statement and since blood transfusions are a 20th century practice, no Bible verse is going to address it. Since being “fed” in a hospital situation can mean an intravenous infusion, we see no difference in the importance of the law, just because of a change in the method of consumption.

That's clear and simple. It still brings up the question I have somewhere below...

Eating blood was forbidden even to the extent of eating the flesh of a strangled (and hence not properly bled) animal. Consumption of blood, regardless of the method was against God’s law. It was a capital offence.

Was there a place where eating sacrifice can only be done if one is clean first or just no blood in general?

Do JW believe they were washed by (how they say in some churches) "cleansed by the blood of christ"?

Yes, it has a lot to do with the patient’s condition and as stated in the video link I provided, there is NO condition that warrants a blood transfusion if the doctor is up to speed on his methods....not even in trauma cases. We are living proof that blood transfusions are not a “necessary” procedure in any case. Patients will die because doctors are not keeping up with the latest medical practice. Dinosaurs do not belong in medicine.

That's an assumption. Maybe where you live? But not as a whole.

If it did not work at all, the procedure would no longer exist. High risk doesn't mean no condition warrants blood transfusions. Disagreeing with it doesn't mean it's not successful in many medical emergencies. Too much generalization.

What is with the child dying scenario? We do not sit back and allow our children to die. We will find a doctor who will treat them without blood. There are many such doctors these days, but some “old school” doctors insist on using blood because they always have, and it’s convenient...not because the patient really needs it. Alternatives are a much safer option, so why resort to the more risky option if you don’t have to?

The analogy excluded alternative treatments.

Will you let your child die if there were no other treatments available other than blood transfusions?

Since we are not generalizing here, we'll assume that google doesn't have all resources of successful blood transfusions.

I don't know about Australia (?) but new school doctors in the US use it-though I read it is a high risk and not the first one chosen. Doctors usually start from the least intravenous treatment not the most.

It’s about the qualifications of the doctor at the end of the day. If any doctor wants to rely on blood transfusions, then he/she is not much of a doctor.

This statement doesn't apply to all doctors. It doesn't rebut what I'm saying just generalizing doctors based on what you believe about blood transfusions.

They are relevant to our lives.....not just this life, but also to our relationship with our God who does list his requirements in his word. No one is forcing you to comply with them. What you do is entirely up to you. But if you know the risks then you must accept the consequences of your own choices.

But my point is to exclude the alternatives to address the question above.

We thank God for the options because they are so much safer. You can take the risk if you wish.

Yes. But I'd most likely choose what's medically best for my child (if I had one) over the bible (there are believers who do let their loved one die because of their morals and believe their loved ones will be in heaven).

A lot may sound a “bit off” to someone who is trying to justify something that is no longer justifiable. As I said this is no longer an issue for us. Whole hospitals dedicated to non-blood medical management have sprung up all over the world. Why would that be if blood was a necessary medical intervention?

I'm not sure where you live, but you're generalizing here. The best treatment depends on the patient, doctors advice, hospital, and other factors.

Doctors don't start with the highest risk treatment.

There is never a question of “if there is none”...there are always alternatives as we have proven. No one “needs” a blood transfusion these days. It’s a medical dinosaur. What doctors have learned about blood and how much tolerance the human body has to low hemoglobin levels has changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Doctors who have kept up to date will implement the alternatives as a first line of defence.

You're not a hypothetical person?

I use hypotheticals so you can think about other people's point of view rather than just your own. Give you some perspective regardless your position on it.

Oh but they will....try telling an old school doctor that his practices over the last 30 years have been updated. He will do what he has always done. You will find that many are a proud and stubborn lot.

Generalization. Not all.

Of course you don't have to use it if you see it the way you do. The point is you will (if you said yes to the question) let a family member die If there were no alternatives.

If your beliefs are strong, would you let your child die as Abraham sacrificed his child to god?

Faith?

Based on our morals? It’s based on the laws of the one who created us.....you can choose to ignore him, that is your choice.

Morals means what you consider right or wrong-in your case, the bible would be the criteria for that.

We aren’t talking about “ifs” because there aren’t any.
We care deeply about our children so that is why we would seek out a doctor that cared about the dangers of blood transfusions, more than they cared about old habits that have been found to be life-threatening, rather than life-saving. Do you get that? We are grateful that doctors cared enough to try other methods and found them to be more successful. Now they are helping many more people, not just JW’s.

I know it's hard to answer the question but you can't generalize here.

Let's say there IS one person who needs blood transfusion and "there are" no other alternatives available (since we don't know every single person in the world)-should they, die because of their parent's morals as JW?

It’s not a moral argument. It’s a stated law like “do not kill” or “do not commit adultery”....to consume blood is against God’s law so we will not do it, under any circumstances. You can if you wish, but God’s law has been vindicated by science.

Morals have to do with what's right or wrong.

Hogwash. That is pure emotional claptrap. We will seek better medical treatment because we care.....seriously.
This whole argument is moot because it no longer exists in the light of modern medical advancement. Please try to keep up.

It's a tough question and emotional.

You're generalizing.

The question still stands. Regardless if you insult my argument or not, I'm trying to see if you would let your child die because there are no other treatments available but blood transfusions.

Don't generalize the whole world in the question.

If you have a child, let's say JW John Doe and his child Jane smith. The question is the same.