ppp
Well-Known Member
You are just doubling down.Okay, so you have no examples, and no source.
You just want to attack JWs' beliefs Agenda noted.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You are just doubling down.Okay, so you have no examples, and no source.
You just want to attack JWs' beliefs Agenda noted.
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.
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.
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.
@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."?
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 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 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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
Are you using your opinions on medical issues on scripture or using scripture to validate your medical views?
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.
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.
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 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 thank God for the options because they are so much safer. You can take the risk if you wish.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?
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.
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.
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.
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’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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We thank God for the options because they are so much safer. You can take the risk if you wish.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.