 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / March 2006For those in need of a blood transfusion
For those in need of a blood transfusion and whose religious convictions or individual concerns prohibit the process, an alternative program is being offered by Allegheny General Hospital (AGH) in Pittsburgh. More than 200 people from the Fayette County area gathered at the Route 40 Holiday Inn in Uniontown Saturday to learn about a unique program at AGH that offers patients in need of surgery the option of forgoing blood transfusions. "Whether due to religious convictions or concerns over the safety of blood transfusions, a growing number of people in our country are expressing an interest in bloodless medicine programs. At Allegheny General, we have established one of the nation's most comprehensive centers to accommodate such patients," said Perry Doebler, a coordinator of AGH's Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery. The alternatives are all available at AGH and for those specifically to the Jehovah's Witness congregations since religious convictions prohibit blood transfusions. Several other reasons why the alternatives are desirable to a patient are because it avoids contracting a disease, a reaction, quicker recovery, lower costs and lower risks of cancer. "Most blood transfusion patients fear diseases such as HIV, HCV, Hepatitis B and others,'' Doebler said. This program takes away those chances.'' The rates, Doebler explained, for getting HIV from a blood transfusion is one in 1.7 million; HCV, 1 in 1.5 million; and Hepatitis B, one in 166,700. The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at AGH was established in 1998. One process involves an intraoperative blood salvage or the "cell-saver system,'' whereby the system collects and returns the patient's own blood lost during surgery. Another technique, Erythropoietin, involves a synthetic hormone, Procit, that stimulates the body's ability to produce red blood cells. "By treating anemia and increasing the red blood cell supply before surgery, the hemoglobin level is increased and remains higher during and after surgery.'' This process would be done at 21 and 14 days before surgery, the day before surgery and the day of surgery, thus eliminating the need for having blood stored from oneself or relying on blood from a blood bank. Other measures include Hemodilution, a temporary replacement of blood with intravenous fluids to reduce blood loss, volume expanders whereby the blood is "watered down" the blood contains a lower concentration of red blood cells and the amount of (cell) lost is reduced. And other alternatives include use of an Argon beam coagulator, a blood clotting process; Electrocautery, use of heat to stop vessels from bleeding; blood-conservation, micro-sampling, whereby very small amounts of blood are taken for testing; skin monitoring, a non-invasive method of tracking oxygen levels during surgery; pharmacological agents; and meticulous surgical techniques to minimize blood loss. Most of the 200 attending Saturday's session were Jehovah's Witness members. Their belief that accepting whole blood or any of the four primary components of blood violates God's law because blood is sacred. According to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, "Jehovah God told our common ancestor Noah that blood must be treated as something special and by rejecting God's law, one could contaminate others.'' With that belief, Louisiana Jones from the Brownsville Kingdom Hall, who moved here from Maryland, said the alternatives at AGH are very encouraging to congregation members. "We will not have blood transfusions, honoring our belief," said Jones. "These alternatives to blood transfusions still honor our beliefs and will be helpful if ever needed.'' Jehovah's Witness members deeply hold their religious convictions that blood transfusions are something they are not willing to accept, no matter the situation. Jones said she has never had the need for a blood transfusion. If ever the need would arise and was needed to save her life or family member, they would refuse. "We would die,'' she said. A Jehovah's Witness man said his concern involves his age element and the fact he may need hip surgery sometime down the road. "I can't walk as well as in my younger days," said the elder man, who asked not to be identified. "I may have to have hip surgery, but won't go through it if I felt I would have to have a blood transfusion.'' Doebler explained much blood loss is common in hip surgeries and the alternatives would be very helpful in recovery. The AGH Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery treats approximately 200-300 patients per year, some traveling from as far away as Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia and Ohio. At AGH, highly complex surgical procedures, such as organ transplantation, brain, vascular, gynecological, cardiac, orthopaedic and gastrointestinal surgery can be performed without the necessity of transfusion. According to AGH coordinator Deborah Tatro, "successful bloodless medicine programs require first and foremost an experienced, uniquely dedicated medical and surgical staff. At AGH, physicians representing just about every major clinical specialty are accessible to patients requiring a bloodless option for their care." She explained that the need for such a program sparked about two to three years ago when the West Nile virus was spreading here. "We saw an upswing in the concern for blood transfusions and the concerns Jehovah's Witness members had in avoiding contamination,'' Tatro said. Those interested in contacting the AGH Center For Bloodless Medicine and Surgery may call 412-359-8787 or 1-877-284-2000. (c)The Herald Standard 2006 Are you kidding me? First, there is no such thing as a bloodless surgery. Second, every Jehovah's witness I've talked to who objects to blood tranfusions (too many) also objects to a cell saver, which is STILL A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. For the same reason, they object to pre-banking blood (same thing really). Third, you make it sound like most people don't try to minimize bleeding. Don't be a fool. Bleeding is always attempted to be kept to a minimum. You think an argon laser is something special and only used for people who don't want transfusions???? It's commonly used. A bloody field is often a surgeon's enemy and nightmare. Your post is thoroughly fruitless. Bottom line is this - the methods you described below are routinely used to varying degrees and should add nothing to a decision to proceed with surgery or not. Personally, I won't operate on a person who refuses blood transfusions if there's a chance he or she will need one. For those in need of a blood transfusion and whose religious convictions or individual concerns prohibit the process, an alternative program is being offered by Allegheny General Hospital (AGH) in Pittsburgh. More than 200 people from the Fayette County area gathered at the Route 40 Holiday Inn in Uniontown Saturday to learn about a unique program at AGH that offers patients in need of surgery the option of forgoing blood transfusions. "Whether due to religious convictions or concerns over the safety of blood transfusions, a growing number of people in our country are expressing an interest in bloodless medicine programs. At Allegheny General, we have established one of the nation's most comprehensive centers to accommodate such patients," said Perry Doebler, a coordinator of AGH's Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery. The alternatives are all available at AGH and for those specifically to the Jehovah's Witness congregations since religious convictions prohibit blood transfusions. Several other reasons why the alternatives are desirable to a patient are because it avoids contracting a disease, a reaction, quicker recovery, lower costs and lower risks of cancer. "Most blood transfusion patients fear diseases such as HIV, HCV, Hepatitis B and others,'' Doebler said. This program takes away those chances.'' The rates, Doebler explained, for getting HIV from a blood transfusion is one in 1.7 million; HCV, 1 in 1.5 million; and Hepatitis B, one in 166,700. The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at AGH was established in 1998. One process involves an intraoperative blood salvage or the "cell-saver system,'' whereby the system collects and returns the patient's own blood lost during surgery. Another technique, Erythropoietin, involves a synthetic hormone, Procit, that stimulates the body's ability to produce red blood cells. "By treating anemia and increasing the red blood cell supply before surgery, the hemoglobin level is increased and remains higher during and after surgery.'' This process would be done at 21 and 14 days before surgery, the day before surgery and the day of surgery, thus eliminating the need for having blood stored from oneself or relying on blood from a blood bank. Other measures include Hemodilution, a temporary replacement of blood with intravenous fluids to reduce blood loss, volume expanders whereby the blood is "watered down" the blood contains a lower concentration of red blood cells and the amount of (cell) lost is reduced. And other alternatives include use of an Argon beam coagulator, a blood clotting process; Electrocautery, use of heat to stop vessels from bleeding; blood-conservation, micro-sampling, whereby very small amounts of blood are taken for testing; skin monitoring, a non-invasive method of tracking oxygen levels during surgery; pharmacological agents; and meticulous surgical techniques to minimize blood loss. Most of the 200 attending Saturday's session were Jehovah's Witness members. Their belief that accepting whole blood or any of the four primary components of blood violates God's law because blood is sacred. According to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, "Jehovah God told our common ancestor Noah that blood must be treated as something special and by rejecting God's law, one could contaminate others.'' With that belief, Louisiana Jones from the Brownsville Kingdom Hall, who moved here from Maryland, said the alternatives at AGH are very encouraging to congregation members. "We will not have blood transfusions, honoring our belief," said Jones. "These alternatives to blood transfusions still honor our beliefs and will be helpful if ever needed.'' Jehovah's Witness members deeply hold their religious convictions that blood transfusions are something they are not willing to accept, no matter the situation. Jones said she has never had the need for a blood transfusion. If ever the need would arise and was needed to save her life or family member, they would refuse. "We would die,'' she said. A Jehovah's Witness man said his concern involves his age element and the fact he may need hip surgery sometime down the road. "I can't walk as well as in my younger days," said the elder man, who asked not to be identified. "I may have to have hip surgery, but won't go through it if I felt I would have to have a blood transfusion.'' Doebler explained much blood loss is common in hip surgeries and the alternatives would be very helpful in recovery. The AGH Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery treats approximately 200-300 patients per year, some traveling from as far away as Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia and Ohio. At AGH, highly complex surgical procedures, such as organ transplantation, brain, vascular, gynecological, cardiac, orthopaedic and gastrointestinal surgery can be performed without the necessity of transfusion. According to AGH coordinator Deborah Tatro, "successful bloodless medicine programs require first and foremost an experienced, uniquely dedicated medical and surgical staff. At AGH, physicians representing just about every major clinical specialty are accessible to patients requiring a bloodless option for their care." She explained that the need for such a program sparked about two to three years ago when the West Nile virus was spreading here. "We saw an upswing in the concern for blood transfusions and the concerns Jehovah's Witness members had in avoiding contamination,'' Tatro said. Those interested in contacting the AGH Center For Bloodless Medicine and Surgery may call 412-359-8787 or 1-877-284-2000. (c)The Herald Standard 2006 > Are you kidding me? First, there is no such thing as a bloodless surgery. "Bloodless surgery" and "bloodless medicine" are common labels used by the medical industry itself to describe assorted medical techniques and regimens that avoid blood transfusions. Examples of use are: http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/bloodless/ http://www.bloodlessmed.com/ > Second, every Jehovah's witness I've talked to who objects to blood > tranfusions (too many) also objects to a cell saver, which is STILL A BLOOD > TRANSFUSION. Then you haven't talked to a wide-enough sample of JWs. There are JWs who don't object to the cell-saver machine. According to the article that was posted, JWs do not catagorically reject the use of cell-savers. At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:jv24FqsiAXMJ:www.ruh-bath.swest.nhs.uk/docum ents/press_statements/05.09.09%2520Cell%2520Saver.pdf+%22cell+saver%22+donated&h l=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 Here's a link that says that the WTS acted as a pass-through agent, to distribute donated cell-savers (from the USA) to countries in Europe that didn't have access to the technology: http://www.humed.com/html/prnew/press_release00/0006/000616a.shtml And here's a link to an article that says that a JW-run charity donated a cell-saver to a hospital: http://www.poolehos.org/press/JW.htm > For the same reason, they object to pre-banking blood (same > thing really). Some may feel that way, but others do not. > Third, you make it sound like most people don't try to > minimize bleeding. Don't be a fool. Bleeding is always attempted to be > kept to a minimum. You think an argon laser is something special and only > used for people who don't want transfusions???? It's commonly used. A > bloody field is often a surgeon's enemy and nightmare. Blood conservation techniques are better than they have ever been, and awareness of tools and techniques for blood conservation is similarly on the rise. But that is so, at least in some measure, because the medical community has responded to the JW request for surgery without transfusions. There is still plenty of room to improve awareness on the part of doctors and patients about options that reduce or eliminate the use of blood transfusions. > Your post is thoroughly fruitless. Bottom line is this - the methods you > described below are routinely used to varying degrees and should add nothing > to a decision to proceed with surgery or not. They matter to the decision made by the JW patient to proceed with the surgery. > Personally, I won't operate on a person who refuses blood transfusions if > there's a chance he or she will need one. That is your choice. I presume that JWs don't give you their business [if they need surgery]. JWs appreciate the courage and skill of doctors who are willing to respect their request to refuse blood transfusions. Those doctors have helped expand the boundaries of medical techniques to the benefit of all. -mark. > For those in need of a blood transfusion and whose religious > convictions or individual concerns prohibit the process, an [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > (c)The Herald Standard 2006 > At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: We are involved in clinical trials with hemoglobin substitutes in instead of transfusions. Will JW object to these solutions in the future? My experience with JW have been that they have extreme views and not only blood transfusions but blood products including EPO, factor VII. With significant bleeds then FFP and platelets are needed. Anything remotely related to blood is a no no for them. >>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: > > We are involved in clinical trials with hemoglobin substitutes in instead of > transfusions. Will JW object to these solutions in the future? I don't know ... I'd have to know more about them before I'd be able to venture a guess. > My experience with JW have been that they have extreme views and not only > blood transfusions but blood products including EPO, factor VII. I know JWs who have taken EPO. I don't know any who have dealt with factor VII. Have you ever been in contact with anyone from the JW 'Hospital Liason Committee' from your area? > With > significant bleeds then FFP and platelets are needed. Anything remotely > related to blood is a no no for them. JWs realize that their position may put doctors in a bind from a medical perspective, but they appreciate it when doctors are willing to respect their consciences and find 'work-arounds' for their problems. Even if a JW was willing to take all blood products, but for some reason the blood supply ran short so that none was available for them within their window of treatment time, what then? Doesn't the medical community recognize a certain need to push beyond current means and methods (which have limitations), so that, one day, perhaps, there will be other options which make blood-based product shortages a moot point? -mark. > >>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't know ... I'd have to know more about them before > I'd be able to venture a guess. They are essentially free hemoglobin protein that is red in color. It can take on oxygen and deliver it to tissues without the blood cells or plasma. > > My experience with JW have been that they have extreme views and not only > > blood transfusions but blood products including EPO, factor VII. > > I know JWs who have taken EPO. I don't know any > who have dealt with factor VII. factor VII can decrease the need for blood cell transfusions by plugging up the site of bleeding as in trauma or factor VIII deficient individuals. These are recombinant proteins and not extracted from blood. > Have you ever been in contact with anyone from the > JW 'Hospital Liason Committee' from your area? I am sure they have although options are limited once the anemia is severe. > > With > > significant bleeds then FFP and platelets are needed. Anything remotely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it when doctors are willing to respect their > consciences and find 'work-arounds' for their problems. They do but as I stated some JW don't know where to draw the line. Are recombinant proteins considered a no no? > Even if a JW was willing to take all blood products, > but for some reason the blood supply ran short so that > none was available for them within their window of > treatment time, what then? Then if they die it wasn't because one did not try. The other option is to see one bleed to death and do nothing. Doesn't the medical community > recognize a certain need to push beyond current > means and methods (which have limitations), so that, > one day, perhaps, there will be other options which > make blood-based product shortages a moot point? > > -mark. Yes, which is why I brought up the point of artificial blood. I was involved with a case in which the person had a hematocrit of 14 in a major trauma and survived because of the artificial blood. The only problem is that they might consider hemoglobin as blood and refuse it. >>>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They are essentially free hemoglobin protein that is red in color. It can > take on oxygen and deliver it to tissues without the blood cells or plasma. Very interesting. Just of out of curiousity, can hemoglobin be manufactured synthetically, or is it (at present only) extracted from blood? [I ask because I wonder if it subject to contamination from bloodborne diseases, like factor VII is/was (do I understand correctly that factor VII can now be produced synthetically?).] >>>My experience with JW have been that they have extreme views and not > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the site of bleeding as in trauma or factor VIII deficient individuals. > These are recombinant proteins and not extracted from blood. For what it's worth (to you), the Watchtower published an article in 2000, and reprinted it in 2004, that indicated that blood-fraction products like factor VII are NOT classified as 'strictly banned' (because they are not what could be said to be "blood"), but rather are up to each JW to decide. >>Have you ever been in contact with anyone from the >>JW 'Hospital Liason Committee' from your area? > > I am sure they have although options are limited once the anemia is severe. No offense ... but you seem to be answering a different question than the one I asked. I was wondering if YOU had ever talked to anyone from a JW HLC in your area (even if it was in conjunction with treating a JW patient). I'm not trying to 'force' you into contact/conflict with them; but I only mention them as a source of reliable information about various aspects of the 'official JW viewpoint' on blood, blood fractions, and various forms of treatment that involve them. >>> With >>>significant bleeds then FFP and platelets are needed. Anything remotely [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They do but as I stated some JW don't know where to draw the line. Are > recombinant proteins considered a no no? There's two separate issues, here. If some JWs are truly ignorant about ALL the issues, that's as may be, and may be because they aren't paying attention (for some bad reason). Despite a few claims to the contrary, the WTS makes a reasonable effort to inform all JWs of the issues, and has created the internal HLC structure to assist individual JWs with getting information about treatment options that is more up-to-date than what might be 'in print' (in WTS material). The second issue (from the JW perspective, which is obviously not YOUR perspective) has to do with the fundamental ambiguity of (what I will call) 'blood fractions' because they aren't blood, per se, but are (or were, at first) derived directly from blood. The JW 'aversion' to blood derives from their interpretation of the NT command to the first Gentile Christians to "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25). Some JWs may feel that if a blood product is derived directly FROM blood, to their conscience, that requires them to "abstain" from the product. To others, since the product in isolation is 'not blood' (just as oxygen split from a water molecule is no longer 'water'), the injuction to "abstain" is not enjoined upon them, according to their conscience. If a particular protein is synthetically created (is that what recombinant means?), then, it's likely that there would be no objection (but who am I do say that no one would object?). I personally believe that the fundamental issue [underlying the JW view on blood] is that blood, from a living being, is viewed by God as symbolic of the life of that being (whether animal or human), and that God's claim of 'ownership' over blood equates to his (rightful) claim of ownership of life. The JW view is virtually identical to the view expressed independently by the late German scholar Gerhard von Rad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_von_Rad), who wrote the following about the Noachian prohibition on blood (at Gen 9:4): "... [it is] an ordinance for all mankind. Even when man slaughters and kills, he is to know that he is touching something, which, because if its life, is in a special manner God's property; and as a sign of this he is to keep his hands off the blood. This regulation of man's relation to the animal world could be designated a regulation of necessity. ... But the establishment of the divine sovereign right over human life is expressed apodictically and unconditionally. It is absolutely inviolable and, moreover, not for man's sake because of some law of humanity, or "reverence for life," but because man is God's possession and was created in God's image." - _Genesis, A Commentary_, translated by John H. Marks, p.128 (1961). Because JWs view the command to Christians in Acts to be a confirmation of the validity and applicabilty of Noachian law to them, and because the law on blood is "absolutely inviolable," they at least glance askance at blood fractions that originate with blood, because they originate with an actual life. SYNTHETIC products, however, do not originate with life, but merely copy what life creates. So, at least in theory, it's likely that a fair number of JWs wouldn't have a problem with such synthetic products. [Side note/disclaimer: I'm not claiming von Rad 'agrees with JWs on blood transfusions' -- for I have read nothing about his views that might be related directly to them. I'm only taking note that his comments on Gen 9:4 are what they are, very similar to the JW view on Gen 9:4.] One last thought on the point of "knowing where to draw the line": regardless of your own position on the issues, it's a line that you cannot draw for them. They must draw it on their own, and take responsibility for their choice. >>Even if a JW was willing to take all blood products, >>but for some reason the blood supply ran short so that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then if they die it wasn't because one did not try. The other option is to > see one bleed to death and do nothing. To "try" is all JWs are asking their physicians, to "try" to help them with all other means as though the needed blood were simply not available. > Doesn't the medical community > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with a case in which the person had a hematocrit of 14 in a major trauma and > survived because of the artificial blood. I know that some JWs have survived having had levels lower than that without blood or artificial blood. I'm not, however, doubting, that the artificial blood benefited that person. > The only problem is that they might consider hemoglobin as blood and refuse > it. You are correct that some "might." Others might not. See above. -mark. "Mark Sornson" <deletethisprefix.marksnewsaccount@verizon.net> wrote in > Just of out of curiousity, can hemoglobin be manufactured > synthetically, or is it (at present only) extracted from > blood? [I ask because I wonder if it subject to contamination > from bloodborne diseases, like factor VII is/was (do I > understand correctly that factor VII can now be produced > synthetically?).] I had to look up the a link to see and according to the site it Is manufactured from human red blood cells using steps to reduce the risk of viral transmission. So I guess it's an extraction from blood. http://www.northfieldlabs.com/polyheme.html So is it in or out as an alternative for you guys? > "Mark Sornson" <deletethisprefix.marksnewsaccount@verizon.net> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Is manufactured from human red blood cells using steps to reduce the risk of > viral transmission. Thanks for checking. > So I guess it's an extraction from blood. > > http://www.northfieldlabs.com/polyheme.html > > So is it in or out as an alternative for you guys? If it is in the same category of products like EPO, then I suspect that there is no absolute answer, but rather, it's up to the conscience of each individual. -mark. >>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > one day, perhaps, there will be other options which > make blood-based product shortages a moot point? Companies have been trying for years and years to do this. They've come up with a number of products - all of which have crashed and burned. Blood loss will always exist in major surgeries, no matter how good the tools get. >>>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > with a number of products - all of which have crashed and burned. Blood > loss will always exist in major surgeries, no matter how good the tools get. Acknowledged. That's why JWs have their particular spiritual perspective: their religious beliefs give them a hope for the future that, when realized, will make these here-and-now issues (of great difficulty) moot. But faith/beliefs aside, JWs appreciate the efforts doctors and others have made that directly or indirectly accomodates their religious views in the present. -mark. >> At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > significant bleeds then FFP and platelets are needed. Anything remotely > related to blood is a no no for them. That has been the bulk of my experience as well. Not all, but certainly a vast majority. When the pain becomes too much to take, however, it's amazing how religious convictions can often fly out the window and suddenly they're signing consent forms for blood transfusions. > That has been the bulk of my experience as well. Not all, but certainly a > vast majority. When the pain becomes too much to take, however, it's > amazing how religious convictions can often fly out the window and suddenly > they're signing consent forms for blood transfusions. You claimed earlier that you do not operate on them. How do you know they sign consent forms? >> That has been the bulk of my experience as well. Not all, but certainly >> a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You claimed earlier that you do not operate on them. How do you know > they sign consent forms? years of training, partners, colleagues, etc. Many many ways. > You claimed earlier that you do not operate on them. How do you know > they sign consent forms? ' Why are you passing as a woman poster from ARJ-W Jabriol?  SignatureTG....... I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen F. Frost- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- >>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > amazing how religious convictions can often fly out the window and suddenly > they're signing consent forms for blood transfusions. Well, yes ... pain is an amazing thing. That's why torture is so effective in getting people to sign confessions. But the question is, are things that people sign under the influence of severe pain truly indicative of their thoughts and the values that they hold under normal conditions? -mark. >>>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -mark. Mark I think he meant psychological pain, fright of loss, not physical pain. Are you not able to mentalize feelings, are you an autist (Aspergers?). You take everything literally. Saba >>>>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Are you not able to mentalize feelings, are you an autist (Aspergers?). You take > everything literally. Skeptic didn't use any language that would indicate that he intended to 'mentalize feelings.' That seems to be your thing, however. What's your compulsion to take everything figuratively? Skeptic is free to clarify what he meant, if he wants to. -mark. ¬ Saba Gracile ¬ wrote: > "Mark Sornson" <deletethisprefix.marksnewsaccount@verizon.net> skrev i melding > news:%XRUf.3632$3t1.1494@trndny08... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Are you not able to mentalize feelings, are you an autist (Aspergers?). You take > everything literally. Skeptic didn't use any language that would indicate that he intended to 'mentalize feelings.' That seems to be your thing, however. What's your compulsion to take everything figuratively? Skeptic is free to clarify what he meant, if he wants to. -mark. --So you think that people make that desicion under severe physical pain? Think a little, most of the time it's a person who's going into operation or is unconscious about what's going on. So therefore it's the relatives who's in *pain* as to whether it should involve a blood transfusion. Pain can be on other levels than physical. Now I understand why you don't understand the bible at all, you don't understand simple mental states. Saba > ¬ Saba Gracile ¬ wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > you > don't understand simple mental states. If someone has a large renal tumor, it can be quite painful. When that tumor was smaller it may have been just a discomfort, he would have been evaluated and told it's 90% likely to be a kidney cancer and needs surgery. He may have refused based on his beliefs. Later, when that pain is keeping him up at night, preventing him from enjoying life, or even getting daily tasks done, he may decide (and some do) that maybe his religious convictions can have some leeway and he'll get his surgery and consent for a blood transfusion. > If someone has a large renal tumor, it can be quite painful. When that > tumor was smaller it may have been just a discomfort, he would have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can have some leeway and he'll get his surgery and consent for a blood > transfusion. No morphine..?? > No morphine..?? ===================== Why are you posting as a woman now jabriol, using woman's NYMs? SignatureDo.... All the JWs wish for is walking around the COUNTRYSIDE (never any towns pictured in the WT rags) smiling like the village idiot and carrying baskets of veggies and fruit with them. Also note they all live in suit pants and dress shirts. The women live in housedresses of 1952 vintage..... and they call that paradise? Any normal human being would rapidly be bored to death looking at trees, grass, each other's ever smiling faces and eating a vegetarian diet. They'd soon be longing for a good book, a movie, a Mall or a steak dinner..... (Carol) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > If someone has a large renal tumor, it can be quite painful. When that > tumor was smaller it may have been just a discomfort, he would have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can have some leeway and he'll get his surgery and consent for a blood > transfusion. You would think the Watchtower would stay out of people's personal lives. They don't. They even invaded the sacred bed of married couples back in the 1980s causing many marriages to be destroyed with their teachings. This cult is deadly to families, friendships and marriages. Marie........ ¬ Saba Gracile ¬ wrote: > "Mark Sornson" <deletethisprefix.marksnewsaccount@verizon.net> skrev i > melding news:%XRUf.3632$3t1.1494@trndny08... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > You take > everything literally. Skeptic didn't use any language that would indicate that he intended to 'mentalize feelings.' That seems to be your thing, however. What's your compulsion to take everything figuratively? Skeptic is free to clarify what he meant, if he wants to. Both could be true but physical pain was my original meaning. > ¬ Saba Gracile ¬ wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Both could be true but physical pain was my original meaning. oh ok. I didn't read the whole thread. I got the impression that most of the time the blood issue is at accidents and other acute situations. I haven't imagined anybody wanting for blood because of some pain. But a tumour,ok. A tumor that can cause big blood loss I suppose. Saba > Well, yes ... pain is an amazing thing. That's why torture > is so effective in getting people to sign confessions. But > the question is, are things that people sign under the influence > of severe pain truly indicative of their thoughts and the values > that they hold under normal conditions? Are you telling us your god would rather see us humans suffer intense agony, including children - to his glory rather than see us get relief? If so, then why do you need a devil and demons as your god would fit the bill there as well. SignatureMAM........ In light of the fact that there is no physical evidence any God exists, I find it very strange that all these different "Gods" are superior to everybody else's. Perhaps the whole concept of GOD is simply designed to make ourselves feel superior to everybody (and everything) else. Campbell. ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ >>>>At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of severe pain truly indicative of their thoughts and the values > that they hold under normal conditions? Yes, they are. It simply puts life in perspective and clears away the clutter. >>> At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > amazing how religious convictions can often fly out the window and > suddenly they're signing consent forms for blood transfusions. Back during the time I was studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses as a teen in the late 1970's, I was hit by a car on a major street while riding my bike. I was thrown through the air across the intersection and landed on my head. As the car hit me, I was convinced at that moment that I was dead (or about to be dead). I woke up staring at blue skies, disoriented, in the intersection surrounded by police and paramedics. Most onlookers thought I had died instantly when the car hit me at around 40 mph. Someone in my congregation witnessed the accident and convinced police to call a local hospital that was friendly to Jehovah's Witnesses, where I was taken. I was passing in and out of consciousness during the ride to the hospital. In the emergency room, a woman who looked like a nun dressed as a nurse asked me to explain my reasons for refusing a blood transfusion in the event I needed one. I quoted various scriptures by memory and she was amazed considering my condition. I must have lost consciousness again because when I woke up, I was on a gurney surrounded by doctors and nurses, and a form on a metal clipboard was hovering over my head. They lifted my hand, placed a pen in it, and said that I should understand that if I sign this consent form, I will not receive a blood transfusion in the event one is needed, and could die. Did my convictions "fly out the window" and did I suddenly sign the consent form? Quite the opposite. I believed God was testing my appreciation for His laws for abstaining from blood in the Bible, and that if I died, I would be resurrected by God at some unknown time in the future. That was enough for me to sign that consent form. Much has changed in the decades passed. It is possible to receive various blood components in good conscience. Medical technology has changed that might have negated a blood transfusion in the situation I experienced with my accident getting hit by a car on a bicycle. I've asked myself, if I suddenly woke from consciousness in that emergency room and was asked to sign that consent form all over again, knowing what I know now, would I sign that form. I think that I speak for more Jehovah's Witnesses than you can possibly imagine in answering, "yes I would." Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusions as to why people are willing to give their lives under various circumstances for God they do well to fully research and understand the "why"? These convictions on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses, whether you agree or disagree, have lead to the great advances in blood technologies that will save countless millions of lives during surgery, on the battlefield and in new treatments to prevent disease and death. >>>> At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: >>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > save countless millions of lives during surgery, on the battlefield and in > new treatments to prevent disease and death. Again, to reiterate - surgical practice has advanced for many reasons, religious quacks is not one of them. They are too small a group of people to have an impact. Rather, there are MANY reasons for surgeons to want to minimze blood transfusions, such as fluid shifts, transfusion reactions, an incredibly large number of people on various blood thinners such as coumadin, etc etc etc etc. JW's don't even enter that equation. As for your above story, if true, you were lucky. Others who refuse transfusions in similar situations die. You must be better than them in the eyes of your god. If you think your god was testing you, maybe he could have left a 15 question quiz on your desk at home rather than have you smashed by a car, eh? That kind of god seems like a god hell bent (pun intended) on inflicting harm and suffering - consistent with many of the other gods throughout history - warmongers. > >>> At times JWs donate money to purchase cell-savers: > >> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > save countless millions of lives during surgery, on the battlefield and in > new treatments to prevent disease and death. No not the role of JW that lead to changes in techology but the limiting aspects of not getting in blood sooner in the field and preventing death at the scene. One can not store blood that has a shelf life of 30 days under refrigeration available on the spot where that patient is. Sometimes it takes hours for extraction from remote sites. One has that golden hour in which to restore blood circulation as if it happens after that one can still die as a result of organ damage. People still bleed to death within the hospital when they can't keep up the blood loss. The techology shifts are toward a life saving solutions that can susbstitute for blood because of practical reasons and not solely religious ones. Even with severe vascular damage these solutions may not be adequate. One still needs the heart to pump and have most of the plumbing going for circulation to occur. The other problem is inadequate testing for certain conditions such as Mad Cow disease or West Nile Virus where if you go to europe then it excludes you from donating. This causes a blood shortage. We also have blood shortages every winter and summer when people go on vacations. >> Are you kidding me? First, there is no such thing as a bloodless >> surgery. > > "Bloodless surgery" and "bloodless medicine" are common labels No, they're pointless labels but not common. > used by the medical industry itself to describe assorted medical > techniques and regimens that avoid blood transfusions. Examples [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Then you haven't talked to a wide-enough sample of JWs. > There are JWs who don't object to the cell-saver machine. I'm not saying they don't exist. JW's who accept routine blood transfusions exist. But they're not the rule but the exception. If you don't agree, your exposure is likely too limited. > According to the article that was posted, JWs do not catagorically > reject the use of cell-savers. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Some may feel that way, but others do not. I've never met one that agreed to a cell saver but refused autologous blood transusions - or vice versa. And if I did I'd probably lose what hair I have left. >> Third, you make it sound like most people don't try to >> minimize bleeding. Don't be a fool. Bleeding is always attempted to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Blood conservation techniques are better than they > have ever been, It's not "blood conservation" technique. It's surgical technique. It is better today than it was in 1980 which was better than it was in 1960 which was better than it was in 1940. It'll continue to improve as instruments continue to improve. The goal is improving outcomes - of which minimizing blood loss has always been just one factor. > and awareness of tools and techniques > for blood conservation is similarly on the rise. Amongst the public maybe. Amongst those operating, we've always been up to date. > But > that is so, at least in some measure, because the > medical community has responded to the JW request for > surgery without transfusions. No, that has not played a part in it. If you think has and have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. The thing that has pushed minimizing blood loss perhaps more than other things are operating on those with heart disease and operating on those on blood thinners. Not religious fanatics. > There is still plenty > of room to improve awareness on the part of doctors and > patients about options that reduce or eliminate the > use of blood transfusions. Aha. And you're going to do that? ok... >> Your post is thoroughly fruitless. Bottom line is this - the methods you >> described below are routinely used to varying degrees and should add >> nothing to a decision to proceed with surgery or not. > > They matter to the decision made by the JW patient to > proceed with the surgery. Not really - if they're against a blood transfusion and they may need one during surgery, they really shouldn't proceed. >> Personally, I won't operate on a person who refuses blood transfusions if >> there's a chance he or she will need one. > > That is your choice. I presume that JWs don't give you their > business [if they need surgery]. What part of I don't operate on them didn't you understand? > JWs appreciate the courage and skill of doctors who are willing > to respect their request to refuse blood transfusions. Those > doctors have helped expand the boundaries of medical techniques > to the benefit of all. > > -mark. No, Mark, all that JW's have done for the surgical field is give a lot of doctors chest pain. They have not at all helped advance the field of surgery. We would be right where are today if JW's didn't ever exist. >> For those in need of a blood transfusion and whose religious >> convictions or individual concerns prohibit the process, an [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] >> >> (c)The Herald Standard 2006 >>>Are you kidding me? First, there is no such thing as a bloodless >>>surgery. >> >>"Bloodless surgery" and "bloodless medicine" are common labels > > No, they're pointless labels but not common. OK, they aren't "common," if common means used by all in the medical community (including yourself). They are, however, being used by an increasing number of medical professionals to target a style of care to a particular client-base. Those labels are not meaningless to those who seek surgical treatment without the use of blood transfusions. Those labels represent an attitude of respect for those who make that choice, which includes an attitude which lacks any perjorative assertions about those who seek that sort of treatment (whether they be about their religious beliefs, or about their state of mind and their ability to make rational choices for themselves). >>used by the medical industry itself to describe assorted medical >>techniques and regimens that avoid blood transfusions. Examples [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exist. But they're not the rule but the exception. If you don't agree, > your exposure is likely too limited. ?? -- I didn't say that no JWs have ever, when pushed by trying circumstances, compromised on this issue. There are also JWs who compromise on other moral issues, too. But, as you say, they aren't the rule, but the exception. The JWs who do accept the use of a cell saver don't view it as a transfusion (under the exigent circumstances in which it is used), but more of an in-the-moment way to fix a breach of their circulatory system. I'm not saying that YOU couldn't make a different argument from your perspective; but I do believe I'm accurately conveying how JWs tend to view using one. >>According to the article that was posted, JWs do not catagorically >>reject the use of cell-savers. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > transusions - or vice versa. And if I did I'd probably lose what hair I > have left. So, you're saying that you've met JWs who have * agreed to a cell saver AND to an autologous blood transfusion and those who have * refused the use of a cell saver and similarly refused an autologous blood transfusion. but that you haven't met any who have * agreed to a cell saver but who have refused an autologous blood transfusion. I presume your argument is that since a cell-saver returns the patient's own blood to him, that process is implicitly an autologous blood transfusion. That may be so, but JWs make a distinction between accepting an in-the-moment use of the cell saver to return their in-the-moment lost blood to them, and the pre-operative storage of their blood for later return during surgery as an autologous transfusion. Whether or not you feel that that distinction makes sense, JWs believe there is some importance to it. >>> Third, you make it sound like most people don't try to >>>minimize bleeding. Don't be a fool. Bleeding is always attempted to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's not "blood conservation" technique. It's surgical technique. Well yes -- but they are techniques that have the minimization of blood loss in mind, as improvements on other techniques (whether earlier or contemporary) that lose more blood which is then replaced by transfusion. The techniques were development with the goal in mind to minimize blood loss, either because it just made good sense to do so, or because replacement blood was not available or was ruled out by patient choice. > It is > better today than it was in 1980 which was better than it was in 1960 which > was better than it was in 1940. It'll continue to improve as instruments > continue to improve. The goal is improving outcomes - of which minimizing > blood loss has always been just one factor. But as a "factor," it is something that surgeons have made a conscious choice to address. In some instances, they have addressed it because their patients have refused to accept blood transfusions. Those surgeons took a we'll-see-what-we-can-do-to-help-you approach, rather than a we-can't/won't-help-you-so-just-go-home- and-die approach. >>and awareness of tools and techniques >>for blood conservation is similarly on the rise. > > Amongst the public maybe. Amongst those operating, we've always been up to > date. If you personally have always been up to date, that is just fabulous. I believe the many stories about JWs that I have read are accurate, however, and many of those stories are of the following form: Dr. A tells them, "Your operation CANNOT be done without blood. You will die without the operation and without blood. I will not operate without blood. There are no other options for you." Dr. B, whom they seek out after rejection by Dr. A, tells them, "I will operate without giving you a blood transfusion. It's risky, but I will do it." The operation is performed, and they live. I also believe what I have seen and read that it takes time for "those operating" everywhere to become fully informed on what it "up to date," AND to have ready access to new technology that enables them to practice what they have been informed about. >> But >>that is so, at least in some measure, because the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with heart disease and operating on those on blood thinners. Not religious > fanatics. It doesn't sound to me as though you'd "really love to see" any evidence that response to JW requests for surgery without transfusions has had any bearing on the state of the technology today. If you saw such evidence, would it make any difference to you? >> There is still plenty >>of room to improve awareness on the part of doctors and >>patients about options that reduce or eliminate the >>use of blood transfusions. > > Aha. And you're going to do that? ok... I'm making no claims for what I personally have the time and resources to do, but I know that the Watchtower Society's Hospital Information does this: http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1993/11/22/article_01.htm and that other JWs privately (i.e,. independantly from the WTS) are doing that: www.noblood.org [I know JWs are involved with this website] >>>Your post is thoroughly fruitless. Bottom line is this - the methods you >>>described below are routinely used to varying degrees and should add [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not really - if they're against a blood transfusion and they may need one > during surgery, they really shouldn't proceed. As I said above, I've read many stories about JWs who were told by one doctor that they "needed" a transfusion during surgery, but they found another doctor who was willing to operate without the "needed" transfusion. I'm not claiming, however, that in-the-moment, all forms of surgery have been perfected to eliminate transfusions. Most JWs know that they are up against the limits of technology and techniques for certain problems, but again, they appreciate finding doctors who are willing to push the boundaries of the state-of-the-art for them, and are usually willing to take the risk. >>>Personally, I won't operate on a person who refuses blood transfusions if >>>there's a chance he or she will need one. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What part of I don't operate on them didn't you understand? Well, then, does this mean that you WILL operate or HAVE operated on JWS, but ONLY for operations where you felt there was no chance that they would need a transfusion? Or does this mean that you ALWAYS feel that there is a chance a transfusion will be needed, and therefore, you NEVER operate on JW patients at all (unless, of course, they are in the minority and will compromise their beliefs and accept a transfusion)? >>JWs appreciate the courage and skill of doctors who are willing >>to respect their request to refuse blood transfusions. Those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, Mark, all that JW's have done for the surgical field is give a lot of > doctors chest pain. Too bad for them. Doctors offer a service for money. As customers, JWs have a right to seek the services of those doctors who are willing to care for their needs, with their stipulated restrictions. Some doctors have been willing to do that without so much judgmentalism on their part toward their patient's religious views. > They have not at all helped advance the field of > surgery. Because they aren't doctors? Is that your point, that what I say seems to be siphoning off glory from the god-heros of medicine? Patients who are willing to risk undergoing cutting-edge (and sometimes experimental) technology should only be worshipfully greatful to the doctors who deign to operate on them? > We would be right where are today if JW's didn't ever exist. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm a skeptic too. I do not believe that you truly speak for all doctors. -mark. >>>For those in need of a blood transfusion and whose religious >>>convictions or individual concerns prohibit the process, an [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] >>> >>>(c)The Herald Standard 2006 > Personally, I won't operate on a person who refuses blood transfusions if > there's a chance he or she will need one. =============== The JWs are a doomsday cult believing the end is just around the corner - any minute now. They don't value human life at all since they feel this life is very temporary until they get into the Watchtower Society's Paradise (which is just around the corner now for over 125 years.). They will die willingly for the WTS and allow innocent children to die for their cause as well. It's very sad. SignatureDu........ How did we get here? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~ From: ÐoÖoZ =============== The JWs are a doomsday cult believing the end is just around the corner - any minute now. They don't value human life at all since they feel this life is very temporary until they get into the Watchtower Society's Paradise (which is just around the corner now for over 125 years.). -->I was wondering when you were going to inject your stupidity into the thread. If they did not value life, why go to a doctor at all? They will die willingly for the WTS and allow innocent children to die for their cause as well. It's very sad. -- ---> The american public has allowed their own soldier to kill children in other countries in the name of war on terrorism and have allowed their own children to die for the same. It seem it is natural evolved tendency to allow children to die or to kill. Therefore your point is moot. Beside if what you say was true, then JW's simply would not take their kids to the doctors. From: ÐoÖoZ =============== The JWs are a doomsday cult believing the end is just around the corner - any minute now. They don't value human life at all since they feel this life is very temporary until they get into the Watchtower Society's Paradise (which is just around the corner now for over 125 years.). -->I was wondering when you were going to inject your stupidity into the thread. If they did not value life, why go to a doctor at all? They will die willingly for the WTS and allow innocent children to die for their cause as well. It's very sad. -- ---> The american public has allowed their own soldier to kill children in other countries in the name of war on terrorism and have allowed their own children to die for the same. It seem it is natural evolved tendency to allow children to die or to kill. Therefore your point is moot. Beside if what you say was true, then JW's simply would not take their kids to the doctors. :REPLY: And you support that? You support the "right" to let your sick kid sit at home and die becuase someone doesn't want them to get medical attention? You justify this based on some meaningless war in the Middle Least??? Are you sick or just demented? Skeptic wrote:> > :REPLY: > And you support that? You support the "right" to let your sick kid sit at > home and die becuase someone doesn't want them to get medical attention? The reply was for Carol to show how idiotic her reply was. She has no intention of defending children. Her participation was an lame attempt to bash JW's, At every opportunity availible. If the thread would have gone in favor of JW's sje would have issued a Troll alert and request that you remove the JW NG from the thread declaring it off topic. The point is Jehovah's Witnesses have been targets of false accusations-barefaced lies and twisted presentations of their beliefs. As a result, they have been the object of unjustified attack in some lands. Further, because they seek nonblood medical treatment that is in harmony with their desire to obey the Bible's command to 'abstain from blood,' they have wrongly been labeled "child murderers" and "a suicide cult." (Acts 15:29) But the fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses place a high value on life, and they seek to obtain the best available medical care for themselves and their children. The accusation that numerous children of Jehovah's Witnesses die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions is totally unfounded. > You justify this based on some meaningless war in the Middle Least??? No war is "meaningless". Or are you suggesting that children killed in wars are not of due importance? > Skeptic wrote:> >> :REPLY: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No war is "meaningless". Or are you suggesting that children killed in > wars are not of due importance? I'm stating that there is no winning or losing the conflict and it is thus a meaningless war. It serves no purpose for Americans. >> > No war is "meaningless". Or are you suggesting that children killed in > > wars are not of due importance? > > I'm stating that there is no winning or losing the conflict and it is thus a > meaningless war. It serves no purpose for Americans. Many kids are losing, And it does serve a purpose for americans. High school drop outs join the army and get killed in Iraq. The smart ones goes to collegage. It is called social engineering. >> Skeptic wrote:> >>> :REPLY: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I'm stating that there is no winning or losing the conflict and it is thus a meaningless war. It > serves no purpose for Americans. Bombing kids to a pulp for economic interest in the area, isn't it? or are we suggesting a noble act of freedom that the genious leaders of your country use to excuse it I wonder. S Jabber's BS! Please don't feed the nym-shifting, nym-stealing, sock-puppet using, cross-posting creationist troll known as Jabriol. If you must, please do so in your own NG and remove the others. Thanks. SignatureJJ....... If you (JWs) are going to insist on using other people's dislike of your religion as some sort of barometer of God's feelings, I have to tell you that as far as that goes, you couldn't even begin to compare yourself to the Jews. If that is your criteria, then I'm afraid you have no chance of being God's People (nor can I understand why you would want to be). (Credit To Campbell) >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< I guess Carol can't use the thread to bash JW's anymore. so predictable. > Jabber's BS! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (Credit To Campbell) > >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< I guess Carol can't use the thread to bash JW's anymore. so predictable. Why are you trying to pass as a woman poster on ARJ-W Jabriol? SignatureTG......... I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen F. Frost- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- > Jabber's BS! > > Please don't feed the nym-shifting, nym-stealing, sock-puppet using, > cross-posting creationist troll known as Jabriol. If you must, please do so > in your own NG and remove the others. Thanks. > -- Another Carol Sock puppet.. where is lamey? these groups need his blessing. these groups need his blessing. Why are you trying to pass as legitimate woman posters from ARJ-W Jabriol? Do you have sexual identity issues? SignatureTG.......... I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen F. Frost- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- > "Terraz Barabel" sock-puppet of JABRIOL <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > news:1143149806.933361.140600@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... The american public has allowed their own soldier to kill children > in other countries in the name of war on terrorism and have allowed > their own children to die for the same. It seem it is natural evolved [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Are you sick or just demented? ======================= If you really want to know just Google "JABRIOL" and you'll have your answer. The JWs will take their children to the Dr. and have them treated up to the point of their needing blood to save their lives. At that point the child or loved one is forced to obey the Watchtower's teaching - and die. Jabriol aka "Terraz Barabel" seeing nothing wrong with that. Many innocent yet gullible people have died thanks to the teachings of this cult. SignatureJoJo........ If you (JWs) are going to insist on using other people's dislike of your religion as some sort of barometer of God's feelings, I have to tell you that as far as that goes, you couldn't even begin to compare yourself to the Jews. If that is your criteria, then I'm afraid you have no chance of being God's People (nor can I understand why you would want to be). (Credit To Campbell) >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >>>> + <<<< >> "Terraz Barabel" sock-puppet of JABRIOL > <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > innocent yet gullible people have died thanks to the teachings of this > cult. Thankfully, if a child is in the care of a doctor and needs a transfusion to live - he can get it as the parents can be deemed incompetent and legally bypassed. It's when they are not brought it ... the cases we don't see ... that are troubling. > Thankfully, if a child is in the care of a doctor and needs a transfusion to > live - he can get it as the parents can be deemed incompetent and legally > bypassed. It's when they are not brought it ... the cases we don't see ... > that are troubling. A cop out. Why not just go to to the congress and senate and declare all JW's incompetent. And remove all their children, and then write a law decalring that no JW should have kids? Why return custody to the parents if they were declared incompetent to begin with? >> Thankfully, if a child is in the care of a doctor and needs a transfusion >> to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > law decalring that no JW should have kids? Why return custody to the > parents if they were declared incompetent to begin with? Incompetent to make a medical decision, not parenting. Do not strecth it please. > >> Thankfully, if a child is in the care of a doctor and needs a transfusion > >> to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Incompetent to make a medical decision, not parenting. Do not strecth it > please. So? If a person is incompetent to make a medical decision for his child then he is incompetent to be a parent. Part of parenting is health care for the child. >> >> Thankfully, if a child is in the care of a doctor and needs a >> >> transfusion [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > then he is incompetent to be a parent. Part of parenting is health care > for the child. Not necessarily. Scenario from TV: a child is sick and needs immediate surgery. father had a very bad experience at that hospital blaming doctors for his mom's death. he wants to do surgery asap in another hospital. he will not sign paperwork. doctor takes over by proxy and does the surgery. Dad is not a bad parent. > >> Incompetent to make a medical decision, not parenting. Do not strecth it > >> please. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doctor takes over by proxy and does the surgery. > Dad is not a bad parent. TV is not real life, and the laws varies from state. In real life if a court removes custody of any kids for what ever reason, delcaring a incompetent parent, in most cases all children are removed. That is real life, but this doesnt happen with medical emergency. I think there is a dual standard here. In your TV hypothesis, the Father seem to be a genuine whack job. And shouldn't have custody of his kids. Now then who is responsible if the court mandated surgery fails? And who is responsible for the Parent mental and emotional state, knowing that he has a child, that from his point of view has been violated by the goverment and medical comunitty? And what make you think that the parent would ever return to get treatment for his children again? As you know JW's and others do not fear jail because of their religious beliefs. >> >> Incompetent to make a medical decision, not parenting. Do not strecth >> >> it [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > you know JW's and others do not fear jail because of their religious > beliefs. TV episode is an illustartion of what is going on in hospitals accross US every day. It does not matter where the example is from. Law is: if there is a danger to a patient, doctors do not need consent to proceed. The father in my example is questioning competency of physicians. We do it too, when there is history of bad decisions. As for as who is guilty will be determined by the panel and courts. And about JW's: their beliefs go against a modern medical procedure. Whatever. They are adults and if they want to die for their beliefs they can do so. But they cannot make their children do that. Other than that I do not see anything wrong with their parenting skills. > >> >> Incompetent to make a medical decision, not parenting. Do not strecth > >> >> it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > every day. It does not matter where the example is from. Law is: if there is > a danger to a patient, doctors do not need consent to proceed. Then I guess once parents of dissenting religions are aware of this more children will die, because doctors refuse to look for an alternative. And as Mentioned many parents do not fear jail for thier beliefs. > The father in my example is questioning competency of physicians. We do it > too, when there is history of bad decisions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do so. But they cannot make their children do that. Other than that I do not > see anything wrong with their parenting skills. Dual Standard. You cant have a Parent who makes half good decision for child. the child is in constant jeopardy. As I said, the Parent might not return to the doctor with the child if he lost custody once. Dual standard even more so. I don't see doctor contradicting children when a 13 yr old wish to have an abortion, essentially killing another unborn child. >> >> >> Incompetent to make a medical decision, not parenting. Do not >> >> >> strecth [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > 13 yr old wish to have an abortion, essentially killing another unborn > child. If the parent does not bring the child back it is negligence and will be taken away. If he dies, parent goes to jail. There was a case where JW female had to have blood transfusion. Doctor used up everything from living to not leaving children alone, the woman did not budge. Then he cleared the room and said everything once again and promised that no one but him her and the nurse will know about the transfusion. She went for it and lived. So, knowing that, a JW family can still bring their child in knowing doctors will override their decision and make that kid live. As far as abortions: Fetus! It is fetus! Plus, do you know of complications of childbirth in kiddies? > "Koi-lo" JABRIOL's stolen NYM/sock-puppet<geister@mailinator.com> wrote in message > Note: Jabriol is now trying to pass as a woman. > news:1143217844.380252.243230@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... I don't see doctor contradicting children when a > > 13 yr old wish to have an abortion, essentially killing another unborn > > child. > > As far as abortions: Fetus! It is fetus! Plus, do you know of complications > of childbirth in kiddies? Jehovah's Witnesses like JABRIOL do not care or value human life like other people do. The WTS is a Doomsday cult. Life is cheap to these people since they believe Armageddon is going to happen at any moment. If a 12 year old is raped they force her to bear the unwanted child at any cost - even if she dies or is left mentally and physically scarred for life. They believe their god is a cold, uncaring and punishing god. They don't admit this until you back them into a corner. SignatureMAM.... In light of the fact that there is no physical evidence any God exists, I find it very strange that all these different "Gods" are superior to everybody else's. Perhaps the whole concept of GOD is simply designed to make ourselves feel superior to everybody (and everything) else. Campbell. ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ > So? If a person is incompetent to make a medical decision for his child > then he is incompetent to be a parent. Part of parenting is health care > for the child. Right Jabriol (geister@mailinator.com) - the JW parent just let's the child die because Paradise is right-around-the-corner (for over 2000 years now). BTW, why are you trying to pass as legitimate woman posters? SignatureMAM... In light of the fact that there is no physical evidence any God exists, I find it very strange that all these different "Gods" are superior to everybody else's. Perhaps the whole concept of GOD is simply designed to make ourselves feel superior to everybody (and everything) else. Campbell. ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ Part of parenting is health care > for the child. ============ Why are you posting as a legitimate woman poster Jabriol? Too ashamed to use your own NYM? SignatureNu........... "Where two or three are gathered together in MY name, I am in their midst:" [Matt 18:20] No Watchtower Society needed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~<{@ --------- SNIP nym-shifter's pro-cult blather ------------ SignatureMAM......... In light of the fact that there is no physical evidence any God exists, I find it very strange that all these different "Gods" are superior to everybody else's. Perhaps the whole concept of GOD is simply designed to make ourselves feel superior to everybody (and everything) else. Campbell. ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ JABRIOL -->I was wondering when you were going to inject your stupidity into the thread. If they did not value life, why go to a doctor at all? ============ I was wondering when you were going to inject your stupidity into this thread under yet another NYM. They go to avoid suffering pain, not to avoid dying for the Watchtower Society. You obviously know little about this Doomsday cult of WT ware peddlers and yet claim you are a JW in good standing. Snip Jabriol flame-war mongering BS. SignatureJoJo........ In light of the fact that there is no physical evidence any God exists, I find it very strange that all these different "Gods" are superior to everybody else's. Perhaps the whole concept of GOD is simply designed to make ourselves feel superior to everybody (and everything) else. Campbell. ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ >For those in need of a blood transfusion and whose religious >convictions or individual concerns prohibit the process, an >alternative program is being offered by Allegheny General >Hospital >(AGH) in Pittsburgh. Hemoglobin compounds are in clinical trials right now involving trauma patients in the field. These red colored solutions carry oxygen and are hemoglobin based. They can be stored at room temperature and last for years vs units of blood which require refrigeration and last only a month. For others the use of autologus blood transfusions is appropriate. One donates blood for oneself a month before surgery and then can be infused during surgery. This eliminates the infectious risk as you are recieving your own blood. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message