Naddia

Starbird stated: According to your religion it is. At one time JW's were not allowed to have organ transplants. The WTS reversed its decision on that years ago. It's now a "conscience matter." Many JW's have had organ transplants. There have even been Awake articles featuring experiences of JW's who have had transplants without receiving blood transfusions. It doesn't sound like you know a whole lot about this religion you're head over heals for. Here's another thing you may not know. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is made up of a group of men in New York. Decisions on major issues like blood transfusions and organ donations are made by vote. There are many issues on which members of the GB disagree, but the majority vote goes down as doctrine: the "light" of God. It's because of the disagreement within the GB that rules within the religion change. Organ transplantation was against the religion's laws until enough members of the GB agreed that it could be scripturally justified. Then the law was changed and it became a conscience matter. JW's who formerly died without choice, now have the option of organ donation if they choose. There are members of your organization, active Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe in the truth of your religion and support the GB, but who think that the WTS's stand on blood transfusions is wrong. They are not allowed to actively oppose the GB out of fear of being disassociated for apostacy. However, some members of the WTS as well as some active elders secretly support a reform on blood transfusions. Hopefully one day your GB leaders will change the rules on blood like they did organ transplantation so that your members don't continue to needlessly die without choice. Until then, the sheep will continue to blindly follow their master to the slaughter. Nad

Starbird stated: The JW’s are also opposed to cannibalism. If it’s not okay to eat another human’s flesh or organs, why is it okay to transplant another person’s flesh or organ’s into your body? By your logic, surely it’s not okay to have a stranger’s organs in your body if it’s not okay to eat them. Not according to the WTS. According to the WTS, the general theme of the Bible is God’s Kingdom, with Christ ruling as king. Surely you know what the theme of your own Bible is according to your own religion? In fact, there are often times when doctors recommend various treatments for medical reasons even though they are not recommended for other reasons. Most doctors discourage the use of narcotics for pleasure, just as most discourage eating blood. They’re not healthy practices. On the other hand, most doctors commonly prescribe narcotics to treat pain under medical supervision when medically beneficial, just as they recommend taking blood transfusions when medically beneficial. JW’s forbid use of narcotics recreationally, citing scriptures about their connections to spiritism, yet take them without hesitation when medically prescribed. What’s the difference? You “bet” it wouldn’t have been acceptable? Wow, and to think of how many people’s lives have been risked and lost on that wager. A friend of mine went in for back surgery. The surgeon severed her aorta and she bled out on the operating table and died. Had she not had that surgery, she would probably be alive today. A patient I took care of had an epidural inserted 20 years earlier during surgery. Somehow the epidural left him paralyzed. Had he not consented to the epidural, he’d be walking today. Every year many people suffer complications and even fatalities because of medication errors made by doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. Perhaps we should abstain from all surgeries, epidurals, medications, and medical procedures because of the potential risks. But you don’t think that, do you? JW’s are inconsistent when they make this argument. They will accept most medical interventions despite the risks. The only time they don’t is when it conflicts with their biased religious beliefs.Your friend’s sister is rare to experience a fatal reaction to a blood transfusion. My brother is a JW. His best friend severed his femoral artery in an accident. He was otherwise fine. He had no other injuries. He was air-cared to a level 3 trauma center and was still alive on arrival, but he was bleeding profusely. He refused a blood transfusion because he was a JW. The doctors tried volume expanders and everything else they could to save him, but it wasn’t enough. Given the nature of his injury, it’s very likely that he would have survived had he accepted the blood. Instead, at the age of 20 he left behind a young wife, baby daughter, parents, siblings, and a whole bunch of friends who loved him. My brother cried for weeks. A friend of mine hemorrhaged during childbirth. It’s extremely rare for a woman to die during childbirth today, especially with good medical care, but she refused a blood transfusion. She left behind a husband and five children because she refused the blood. Your story is a rare case. Those who die because of not taking blood are common cases. Take responsibility for your decision to refuse blood, Starbird, and recognize it for what it is. It is not a responsible medical decision. It is a religious decision, and that’s all it is. Starbird stated: Wow, you jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Ouch! Nad

Hi folks. I hopped over here from another forum, invited by Roy. Interesting discussion here. It’s not often you’ll find a JW who is willing to debate their views like this. Even if Starbird isn’t the most skilled at debating, I applaud her for putting her views out to be challenged like this. That’s more than a lot of JW’s are willing to do. She’s either more confident in herself than most JW’s or she’s wrestling with some doubts herself. Either way, I think it’s great that she’s attempting to debate her views with others. It’s a start. Starbird stated: While it’s true that there are some risks associated with blood transfusions and that some people do experience complications as a result, it’s very rare today. The most common problems associated with blood transfusions are hemolytic reactions, and they’re rare and usually easily treated with medication. There are risks with almost all medical interventions. There are risks with surgeries, epidurals, medications, and many medical procedures, but most allow them because the benefits outweigh the risks. The same is true with blood transfusions. By medical standards, they are very safe and the benefits of them far outweigh risks and complications. If you’d refuse a blood transfusion for the reason you stated above, it’s logically inconsistent that you would undergo any other medical procedure that carries minor risks. Yet most JW’s will accept just about any other medical advice/procedure even if it carries much greater risks. Starbird stated: DNA is in the cells. Blood is made up of cells. So are your organs and other tissues. If you would accept someone else’s kidney, why wouldn’t you accept their blood? Again, this is another inconsistent argument, Starbird, and it’s not the reason you refuse blood. The reason you refuse blood transfusions is scriptural. It’s the scriptural interpretation of the Governing Body. It has nothing to do with DNA. Starbird stated: The average JW also has very little to no knowledge about the benefits vs. risks of blood transfusions and use of other volume expanders. While you may believe blood transfusions to be scripturally wrong, you are merely parroting back your religion’s propaganda with quotes like this one above. You, Starbird, don’t have the first clue about how volume expanders are used and whether or not they are valid substitutes for blood transfusions, do you? Of course not. You’re not a medical professional, and you are not qualified to recommend medical advice without that knowledge. Let’s look at your religion’s assertions above. “Saline solution, ringers solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are readily available in hospitals. actually the risks that go with the use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances.” The problem with this statement is that blood transfusions are not merely volume expanders. Dextrose, Lactated Ringers, and Saline solutions are not substitutes for blood transfusions. Volume expanders are almost always used in conjunction with blood transfusions, and are generally used long before blood. In my 9 years as a registered nurse, 4 of which have been in critical care (ICU and ER), I have never started a blood transfusion without having already started one of the above IV solutions. Volume expanders only take you so far. Oxygen is carried to your vital organs, like your heart, brain, and kidneys through hemoglobin, which is part of the blood. It doesn’t matter how much “volume” you have if you don’t have oxygen perfusing your vital organs. In emergency situations, when a person is bleeding out rapidly, 3-4 liters of saline or ringers solution is all that is medically beneficial. Beyond that, blood is needed to keep the person alive. Giving a person a blood transfusion in an emergency does not ensure that they will live. If the injuries are too extensive, and the blood loss is greater than what is given, the person will still die. However, giving a blood transfusion often allows the doctor enough time to diagnose the injury and repair the bleed. If a person has been given 3 or 4 liters of saline solution and still has a critically low blood count, especially if they are still bleeding, a blood transfusion is needed. And blood transfusions save lives. The benefits of them, from a medical perspective, far outweigh any risks involved. With all due respect, Starbird, this is utter nonsense from someone who has no business giving medical advice. When there is severe blood loss, the greatest risk is that there will not be enough blood to perfuse the vital organs, and without oxygen to those organs, they will die. When a person is deprived of oxygen for more than a few minutes, brain death starts to occur, and will rapidly progress to total brain death. When a person does not have enough hemoglobin to carry the oxygen to those organs, they will die rapidly. Volume is definitely needed to carry the blood to those organs, but without hemoglobin, volume is pointless. As for pouring “large reserves of blood cells into the system” and speeding up “production of new ones,” in traumatic emergencies and with many surgeries that result in a large blood loss, this simply doesn’t happen. The only time this advice (sometimes) works is in non-emergent situations. In a situation where a person has become anemic because of a slow bleed, they might opt to try volume expanders or they might choose to “wait it out” hoping that their body will compensate. Sometimes it does and people can avoid blood transfusions. I’ve had several non-JW patients refuse blood transfusions for personal reasons. Although, in a couple cases they later accepted them because their blood count continued to drop to critical levels without improving on its own. The point here is that the WTS does not abstain from blood because it’s medically beneficial. They abstain from blood because they believe it’s God’s law. From a medical point of view, blood transfusions are highly beneficial, especially when used in conjunction with volume expanders. Any attempt to argue why a person shouldn’t accept a blood transfusion from a medical point of view is absurd. The real reason you oppose it is because you believe it’s scripturally wrong. No twisting of medical information is going to change that. Starbird stated: Most surgeons would agree that there are some minimal risks associated with blood transfusions, just like there are with most other medical procedures. In fact, the risks associated with most surgeries are far greater. Doctors will acknowledge these risks and inform their patients so that they can make an informed decision, and this is true of any medical/surgical procedure, not just blood transfusions. The reason that more surgeons are agreeable to bloodless surgery is not because it’s medically beneficial to the patient; it’s because the focus in medicine is holistic care, which means treating the individual wholly instead of simply treating one medical problem. The unique spiritual, cultural, and individual beliefs of people are taken into consideration more and more by doctors and nurses to preserve the autonomy and freedom of the patient. So many doctors are trying to work with JW’s in treating them in the way they want to be treated out of respect for their religious beliefs, but not because they think it’s medically advisable. The majority of doctors and surgeons out there would greatly prefer that JW’s accept blood transfusions so that they can give you the best medical care possible, but since you won’t accept them and because they are trying to treat you wholly, as an individual, they will do the best they can to treat you without blood. Nad