Death sparks debate on religion's tra...

Death sparks debate on religion's transfusion ban

There are 100 comments on the National Post story from Jul 15, 2009, titled Death sparks debate on religion's transfusion ban. In it, National Post reports that:

A teenage Jehovah's Witness who triggered a cross-country court battle when she refused blood transfusions as part of her cancer therapy has died, renewing debate about the religion's blood ban and its impact on children.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Post.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Lightseer

Fair Oaks, CA

#82 Aug 1, 2009
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I certainly agree, I'm just saying that it is incredibly hard. Witness the lengths they will go to to deny the benefits of blood transfusion.
Yeah, but the rank and file nitwits are still out there trying to claim it's medically wrong. Whilst the WTBS has already made it clear that the JWs reject blood based on *religious* grounds, not medical grounds.

They know they don't have a leg to stand on in the medical arena.

But their little drones still keep chanting on about how they are medically unsafe. Guess they have to reconcile the cognitive dissonance from their mother ship.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#83 Aug 1, 2009
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
Depleted oxygen carrying ability is not an ability that is LOST.
....
Now, please explain PRECISELY what of your sources proves Gordon’s assertion true that “Blood LOOSES ITS ABILITY to carry oxygen after only an hour or two from leaving the body.”
I do not believe Gordon was saying that blood looses its COMPLETE ability to carry oxygen almost immmediately. If he was saying that of course he was wrong. I believe his point was that blood begins to loose its oxygen carrying ability or that it is depleted. I suppose he can clarify if he wishes to do so.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#84 Aug 1, 2009
Thirdwitless writes:

“I do not believe Gordon was saying that blood looses its COMPLETE ability to carry oxygen almost immmediately. If he was saying that of course he was wrong. I believe his point was that blood begins to loose its oxygen carrying ability or that it is depleted. I suppose he can clarify if he wishes to do so.”

My objection on this thread was of Gordon’s assertion, NOT what YOU BELIEVE (though that is usually stupid, too!) as though I care.

Gordon asserted “Blood looses its ability to carry oxygen after only an hour or two from leaving the body. It just becomes a dangerous volume expander.”

Blood is not ‘just a dangerous volume expander’‘after only an hour or two from leaving the body.” EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE offered on this thread testifies to this.

Marvin Shilmer

Since: Jul 09

Adelaide South Australia

#85 Aug 1, 2009
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
Gordon Burns writes,
None of your sources above support your assertion that “Blood looses its ability to carry oxygen after only an hour or two from leaving the body. It just becomes a dangerous volume expander.” NOT ONE.
I got the timming wrong about only an hopur or two as I had not read that article fro about a year. The point is BLOOD LOOSES ITS ABILITY TO DELIVER OXYGEN. What do you think blood transfutions are. They are store blood.

[QUOTE
As for your other sources, what are they supposed to be saying in THIS discussion? Who has argued for bad medical practices? Who? Who has argued for blood transfusion when safer and more efficient alternatives are at hand? Who? No one. That’s who. So what is your point?
Marvin Shilmer
[/QUOTE]

This discution started whith the girl with cancer and blood. The pther quptes show that blood is DAB MEDICINE. JWS DO NOT reject medical help. Theree are far better treatments that blood transfutions. The problem is many doctors are not willing to be told by a patient that. and will not look for better ways to treat a patient. Old habbits and procedures die hard

Since: Jul 09

Adelaide South Australia

#86 Aug 1, 2009
It is amazing the lengths people will go to to deny the bad effects of blood transfusion.

More and more doctors and hos[itals are avoiding the use of old technology for new ones. Did you even lok at any of the links I posted? There are hundreds of articles out there warning of the dangers of blood transutions.

To the best of my knowledge NO DACTOR HAS EVER PROVEN THAT BLOOD SAVES LIVES. They do not know what wpould happen if an alternative was used in stead of blood in a given situation where a patient has lived.

What they DO KNOW is that people that do not have blood RECOVER faster that those that do. Do you own reaserch instad of relying on OLD infprmation
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I certainly agree, I'm just saying that it is incredibly hard. Witness the lengths they will go to to deny the benefits of blood transfusion.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#87 Aug 1, 2009
Gordon writes:

“I got the timming wrong about only an hopur or two as I had not read that article fro about a year. The point is BLOOD LOOSES ITS ABILITY TO DELIVER OXYGEN.”

Nope. Here: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Gordon writes:

“What do you think blood transfutions are. They are store blood.”

“Stored” and “fresh” have specific meanings in hematological medicine as cited earlier in this discussion.

You are a stupid idiot.

Marvin Shilmer

Since: Jul 09

Adelaide South Australia

#88 Aug 1, 2009
Martin why do you have to resort to name caling.?

Did you read the other articles and how they relate to this discution about blood and cancer?

[QUOTE
You are a stupid idiot.
Marvin Shilmer
[/QUOTE]

Since: Jul 09

Adelaide South Australia

#89 Aug 1, 2009
Lightseer said
"Yeah, but the rank and file nitwits are still out there trying to claim it's medically wrong. Whilst the WTBS has already made it clear that the JWs reject blood based on *religious* grounds, not medical grounds.
They know they don't have a leg to stand on in the medical arena.
But their little drones still keep chanting on about how they are medically unsafe. Guess they have to reconcile the cognitive dissonance from their mother ship"
You are corect it is on Biblical grounds that we rejet Blood. Medical scince now supports our stand.
Lightseer said

"They know they don't have a leg to stand on in the medical arena."

This is where you are completely wrong. Do some serious reaserch on NO BLOOD or BLOODLESS MEDICINE
There is so much information out there on the web you will find it difficult to get though it all.

Since: Nov 08

United States

#90 Aug 1, 2009
Gordon Burns wrote:
Martin why do you have to resort to name caling.?
Did you read the other articles and how they relate to this discution about blood and cancer?
<quoted text>
Not only are you an idiot, but I think that you're drunk at this moment. Review your buggered posts and see if you don't agree.

Do you really think that doctors are so stupid and so neglectful of their sworn medical duties as to administer bad medicine when they know better? Some do, just as some people kill other people. But most are extremely ethical and put their patients' welfare foremost. For you to claim otherwise is a slur on the entire medical profession, and typical of how the JW organization under Rutherford did the same thing.

You've been completely brainwashed by the JW organization. This is proved by your admission that you misremembered how quickly blood loses its oxygen carrying capacity. You absorbed the Watchtower lie that it does so extremely quickly, and you retained it. Then when you played back your programming, you spewed back the lie.

You don't even seem to read what your sources say, since they clearly disagree with you. Another instance of JW-induced braindeadness.

AlanF

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#91 Aug 1, 2009
Gordon writes:

"... why do you have to resort to name caling.?"

I didn't call you a name. I stated what you are.

Marvin Shilmer

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#92 Aug 1, 2009
Gordon Burns wrote:
Lightseer said
"Yeah, but the rank and file nitwits are still out there trying to claim it's medically wrong. Whilst the WTBS has already made it clear that the JWs reject blood based on *religious* grounds, not medical grounds.
They know they don't have a leg to stand on in the medical arena.
But their little drones still keep chanting on about how they are medically unsafe. Guess they have to reconcile the cognitive dissonance from their mother ship"
You are corect it is on Biblical grounds that we rejet Blood. Medical scince now supports our stand.
Lightseer said
"They know they don't have a leg to stand on in the medical arena."
This is where you are completely wrong. Do some serious reaserch on NO BLOOD or BLOODLESS MEDICINE
There is so much information out there on the web you will find it difficult to get though it all.
No, RELIGIOUS, not Biblical. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits blood transfusion. That is something that the JWs made up.
son of mr fenger

Glen Rose, TX

#93 Aug 2, 2009
son of mr fenger wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually agree, blood does start to deteriate the min. it is removed from he body,

Third w.;;;;
Marvin won't like that.


son of mr fenger wrote:
even so, it is still the best source for delivery of oxygen to body cells. Mr. shimler does point you to references, the wts hospital liasion, I would think would be high up on your list of reptuable sources.


son of mr fenger wrote:
ABSTAIN=DON'T... even touch it
No, sorry to tell you but that is not what abstain from blood means. If that were the case imagine these scenes:

third w.;;;;

Run for the hills. This guy is bleeding. We can't try to stop the bleeding. We might get some blood on us.

Look, Run! A test tube of blood. Get that away from me. No no, don't come any closer with that.

Heck no I'm not draining the blood from that animal. Some of it might get on me when I cut its throat.

Oh my, I cut my finger and a drop of the blood dripped down on my foot. Oh no it touched me after leaving my body.

reply;;;

I doubt Marvin Shimler is too concerned with my opinion, He has probably done his own research and formed his opinions based on that research. And after reading through you and gordon burns' sources/references, It appears that stored blood has a longer shelf life than I had thought it did.

As far as your examples of; Oh my, I cut my finger and some of it got on my shoe, What you should have said is," oh my I cut my finger, let me catch this blood, then take it to a lab and have some worldly doctor fraction it, then I can use 100% of this blood from my cut finger, Hey I bet these fractions would taste good on my salad"

The same reasoning would apply to your other two examples.
Lightseer

Fair Oaks, CA

#94 Aug 2, 2009
Gordon Burns wrote:

"You are corect it is on Biblical grounds that we rejet Blood. Medical scince now supports our stand."

Absolutely idiotic. Yeah, that's why doctor's get court orders for minor JW children. That's why all the blood banks have shut down and hospitals no longer even carry blood.

Are you for real?

Lightseer said

"They know they don't have a leg to stand on in the medical arena."

"This is where you are completely wrong. Do some serious reaserch on NO BLOOD or BLOODLESS MEDICINE
There is so much information out there on the web you will find it difficult to get though it all."

Oh the fact that there's a lot of information on the web means it's the usual practice.

There's a lot of crap out there authored by idiot JWs but it doesn't make it something worth reading or using.

And thanks, I'll stick to my doctor's recommendations as opposed to an uneducated religious cultist.
son of mr fenger

Glen Rose, TX

#95 Aug 2, 2009
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
Marvin won't like that.
<quoted text>
Really, what did they say? I failed to see his quote from the Hospital Liason. Oh, you mean he gave us his characterization or in Marvin's case that usually means mischaracterization of what they said. Ok.
<quoted text>
No, sorry to tell you but that is not what abstain from blood means. If that were the case imagine these scenes:
Run for the hills. This guy is bleeding. We can't try to stop the bleeding. We might get some blood on us.
Look, Run! A test tube of blood. Get that away from me. No no, don't come any closer with that.
Heck no I'm not draining the blood from that animal. Some of it might get on me when I cut its throat.
Oh my, I cut my finger and a drop of the blood dripped down on my foot. Oh no it touched me after leaving my body.
I doubt Marvin Shimler is too concerned with my opinion, He has probably done his own research and formed his opinions based on that research. And after reading through you and gordon burns' sources/references, It appears that stored blood has a longer shelf life than I had thought it did.

As far as your examples of; Oh my, I cut my finger and some of it got on my shoe, What you should have said is," oh my I cut my finger, let me catch this blood, then take it to a lab and have some worldly doctor fraction it, then I can use 100% of this blood from my cut finger, Hey I bet these fractions would taste good on my salad"

The same reasoning would apply to your other two examples

Since: Jul 09

Adelaide South Australia

#96 Aug 2, 2009
AlanMF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only are you an idiot, but I think that you're drunk at this moment. Review your buggered posts and see if you don't agree.
Do you really think that doctors are so stupid and so neglectful of their sworn medical duties as to administer bad medicine when they know better? Some do, just as some people kill other people. But most are extremely ethical and put their patients' welfare foremost. For you to claim otherwise is a slur on the entire medical profession, and typical of how the JW organization under Rutherford did the same thing.
You've been completely brainwashed by the JW organization. This is proved by your admission that you misremembered how quickly blood loses its oxygen carrying capacity. You absorbed the Watchtower lie that it does so extremely quickly, and you retained it. Then when you played back your programming, you spewed back the lie.
You don't even seem to read what your sources say, since they clearly disagree with you. Another instance of JW-induced braindeadness.
AlanF
No doctors do not want to go against their swarn medical duties but old habits die hard especially if they have not had their training updated.

I have experience 2 different doctors saying that they will leave my wife on the table to bleed if somethig went wrong with her delivery of one of my children, if she (my wife)would not have a transfution.

We found other doctors who recogognised that there are better ways to treat a patient than with blood.

That tells me that, for many doctors their first response is to rely on old habbits.

Why do you think more and more doctors and hospitals are tirning away from blood.

I have had doctors say to me that they themselves would not want a blood transfution.

What does that say?

A lot of doctors are still anaware that blood transfutions are bad medicine.

It is still tayght in the doctors schools.

I have a daughter that is also dyslexic. I was speaking to a new teacher, and was informed that the teachers colleges do not teach anything about dyslexic or how to help such children. This person got their degree only this year

Statistics show that about 1 in 20 children are dyslecic to some degree yet teachers are not taught how to deal with it.

Several of her schools teachers told us there is no such thing as dyslexia and she will learn in her own time. We had to go outside the school system to het help.

Just becasue well informed doctors are recognising the dangers of blood does not mean blood is still being taught as good. My experience above demonstate that

Since: Nov 08

United States

#97 Aug 2, 2009
Gordon Burns wrote:

: No doctors do not want to go against their swarn medical duties but old habits die hard especially if they have not had their training updated.

Well, that's quite an admission coming from someone who has strongly implied the opposite. The simple fact is that as medical science has evolved over the past 60 years, a great deal has been learned, including how best to deal with blood. Modern medicine recognizes generally that use of whole blood is not generally recommended, but that any number of subcomponents are more effective, and even that keeping use of blood products to a minimum is usually the best policy. Thus, whole blood today is hardly ever administered, especially in countries where medical science is up to date.

Blood components are another story compared to whole blood. Blood components really do save lives, or make patient's lives a lot easier. The Watchtower recognized this in the late 1950s by allowing JWs to accept certain components such as "serums" and "globulins" without fear of organizational punishment (although JW leaders oscillated on this for the next 15 years). It recognized this again by the early 1970s, when it began allowing JWs to accept Factor VIII for hemophiliac treatment without fear of shunning (although this was not published for some years in WTS literature; the allowance was given only orally by the Service Department to hemophiliacs and their families).

: I have experience 2 different doctors saying that they will leave my wife on the table to bleed if somethig went wrong with her delivery of one of my children, if she (my wife)would not have a transfution.

That's your fault, not the doctors'. You left them with no other choice. They already knew about blood substitutes, assuming they were competent, and it's obvious to me that they were talking about situations where blood substitutes would not be effective. They must have been talking about situations where your wife was quickly bleeding to death and no solution besides massive blood transfusion of some sort would save her. Plenty of JW women have faced this horrible choice, and many have died.

: We found other doctors who recogognised that there are better ways to treat a patient than with blood.

Sure, but it's obvious that they were talking about specific situations where administering blood was not an IMMEDIATE life or death issue. There are situations where massive blood transfusion is the ONLY choice other than quick death. For example, suppose your wife somehow had the complication that her placenta was stuck to the wall of the uterus, and when it was removed, massive bleeding occurred (this happened with my present wife when bearing her first child). The bleeding could be so massive that virtually all her blood would bleed out on the floor. Then she would die, no questions asked. There are no blood substitutes to take care of that situation. Technology has not gotten there yet.

: That tells me that, for many doctors their first response is to rely on old habbits.

Sometimes that's true. That's why it's always good to shop around for doctors who respect your wishes.

Continued:

Since: Nov 08

United States

#98 Aug 2, 2009
Continuing:

: Why do you think more and more doctors and hospitals are tirning away from blood. I have had doctors say to me that they themselves would not want a blood transfution. What does that say?

Of course, as I said above, as medical science evolves, "best practice" evolves. Doctors are humans, and like all humans tend to get stuck in their ways. Medical science as whole, though, does progress.

: A lot of doctors are still anaware that blood transfutions are bad medicine.

You keep repeating that canard as a mantra. Blood is NOT medicine, it is a treatment. The use of blood transfusions today virtually never involves whole blood, but blood products. Medical professionals in general are acutely aware of the risks versus the benefits of using a specific blood product in a particular situation. Some doctors are more aware of the risks than are others; that's humanity for you.

: It is still tayght in the doctors schools.

Of course, because there are many situations where a blood product is the ONLY treatment.

: I have a daughter that is also dyslexic.

Bummer! One of my best friends is dyslexic, and it has cause him no end of problems, but he has learned how to get around it over the years.

: I was speaking to a new teacher, and was informed that the teachers colleges do not teach anything about dyslexic or how to help such children. This person got their degree only this year. Statistics show that about 1 in 20 children are dyslecic to some degree yet teachers are not taught how to deal with it. Several of her schools teachers told us there is no such thing as dyslexia and she will learn in her own time. We had to go outside the school system to het help.

You obviously have serious problems in several areas, but this has nothing directly to do with the efficacy of using blood products.

: Just becasue well informed doctors are recognising the dangers of blood does not mean blood is still being taught as good. My experience above demonstate that

This is garbled, but I think I understand what you're saying: that while some doctors recognize the dangers of using blood products, others are not so well informed. I agree, but I also emphasize what I said above: blood products must be used with caution and intelligence.

On the other hand, the policy of the Watchtower Society supposedly has nothing to do with the efficacy of using blood products. Both the WTS and various posters on this board have claimed that this policy is purely religious. Therefore, medical issues should not ever enter into discussions of Watchtower policy. But because the Watchtower itself has continually introduced medical issues, it itself has opened up its policy for non-religious scrutiny. And while there are certainly serious medical issues regarding the use of blood products, it is grossly hypocritical for Watchtower leaders to claim both of these things, and then complain when medical professionals and intelligent critics take them to task for their bogus medical claims.

Discussion of the religious issues is not the subject of this thread, but I will say that on this front, the Watchtower loses bigtime. Its religious position is based squarely on its claim that science has determined that whole blood consists of blood components called red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. That is obviously self-contradictory, and has been the subject of extensive discussion on this forum and many others.

AlanF
frida

New Braunfels, TX

#99 Aug 28, 2009
PassingTheTest wrote:
Hi Gareth,
<quoted text>
Garteh, your statement is only true if she was a member of the Anointer Class! For now she only gets a trip into the New Millenium. Only after she works hard in close association with the Anointed Class for the next 1,000 years and passes a final judgement will she get ETERNAL LIFE.
Do you see the mistake in your statement?
Peace,
Bob
Dear bob, I believe you should read John 5:28-29. Thank you
terry

Edmonton, Canada

#100 May 22, 2012
By arguing what happened doesnt change that it did happen . She changed the world for the mature young adults of Canada shouldnt that be what we look at . Not what the.media said or how her religion impacted treatment. There are many ways of getting treatment without the tradition doctors . So step back and look from the outside in with a bias option . It's a tragedy she's gone but look at the difference see made .... A positive change in a large scale way at the age of 19 !!!!!
Arcticguy

Vancouver, Canada

#101 Jun 12, 2013
Historically speaking, I'm always amazed when a certified medical doctor who is also a Jehovah Witness defends the JW dogma to refuse a blood transfusion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The National Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Monday Blues 322,228
News The Latest: Ryan 'sickened' by Trump comments o... (Oct '16) Dec 12 Trump is a joke 5
News Trump Might Be Planning to Deploy the National ... (Feb '17) Dec 10 GoodPhartx 8
Disrespect my Flag ? Dec 10 just laughing 7
fox news ebony Williams you suck Dec 10 just laughing 1
no more red bull Dec 9 gun toten woman 2
News CBS, PBS, Bloomberg suspend Charlie Rose shows ... Nov 21 youll shoot your ... 1
More from around the web