 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / March 2006interesting JAMA article
The American Medical Association from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), November 27, 1981, Volume 246, No. 21, pages 2471, 2472. Copyright 1981, American Medical Association. Physicians face a special challenge in treating Jehovah's Witnesses. Members of this faith have deep religious convictions against accepting homologous or autologous whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], WBCs [white blood cells], or platelets. Many will allow the use of (non-blood-prime) heart-lung, dialysis, or similar equipment if the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted. Medical personnel need not be concerned about liability, for Witnesses will take adequate legal steps to relieve liability as to their informed refusal of blood. They accept nonblood replacement fluids. Using these and other meticulous techniques, physicians are performing major surgery of all types on adult and minor Witness patients. A standard of practice for such patients has thus developed that accords with the tenet of treating the "whole person." (JAMA 1981;246:2471-2472 On a side note: please ignore the disruption from Carolyn Adamo Gulley. She intends to disrupt any serious discussion on JW's and their position on thier stance on blood. By creating and increasing the noise level, she attempts to disuade any serious conversation. Carol does not have the intellect nor the educational background to discuss anything related in these threads. Sad to say she accuses JW of being undereducated, and when a high level topic of this nature is discuused it proves her to be a liar, and that anger her. She expects JW's to be a dumb and uneducated as she is. Planck What is your point? You've posted a 25 year old article about a religiously fanatic group and blood transfusions. This is a discussion board - did you care to discuss something? The American Medical Association from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), November 27, 1981, Volume 246, No. 21, pages 2471, 2472. Copyright 1981, American Medical Association. Physicians face a special challenge in treating Jehovah's Witnesses. Members of this faith have deep religious convictions against accepting homologous or autologous whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], WBCs [white blood cells], or platelets. Many will allow the use of (non-blood-prime) heart-lung, dialysis, or similar equipment if the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted. Medical personnel need not be concerned about liability, for Witnesses will take adequate legal steps to relieve liability as to their informed refusal of blood. They accept nonblood replacement fluids. Using these and other meticulous techniques, physicians are performing major surgery of all types on adult and minor Witness patients. A standard of practice for such patients has thus developed that accords with the tenet of treating the "whole person." (JAMA 1981;246:2471-2472 On a side note: please ignore the disruption from Carolyn Adamo Gulley. She intends to disrupt any serious discussion on JW's and their position on thier stance on blood. By creating and increasing the noise level, she attempts to disuade any serious conversation. Carol does not have the intellect nor the educational background to discuss anything related in these threads. Sad to say she accuses JW of being undereducated, and when a high level topic of this nature is discuused it proves her to be a liar, and that anger her. She expects JW's to be a dumb and uneducated as she is. Planck Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or only yourself? did you get the point yet? > What is your point? You've posted a 25 year old article about a religiously > fanatic group and blood transfusions. This is a discussion board - did you [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Planck > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or > only yourself? > > did you get the point yet? The point is if JW refuses blood trans. they die. No problem with that. They believe something, they are over 18, it's all right with me. I do think they are fanatics, but do not care if their decisions hurt them, since they don't think so. But when they try to decline proven medical help to their kids, under 18, then I do not care who kids' parents are, I do what I need to do and allowed to do by law, without their consent. > > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And > > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The point is if JW refuses blood trans. they die. No problem with that. They > believe something, they are over 18, it's all right with me. Fair enough. In regards to children, by your expresion you belive that everyone under 18 should be consider as a child, with no rights to make personal decision. Is this correct on my part? >I do think they > are fanatics, but do not care if their decisions hurt them, since they don't > think so. But when they try to decline proven medical help to their kids, > under 18, then I do not care who kids' parents are, I do what I need to do > and allowed to do by law, without their consent. So, a 17yr old is not mature enough to make personal decisions? >> > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And >> > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So, a 17yr old is not mature enough to make personal decisions? You're dodging the bigger issue that' CAIIA is getting at. Forget 17, what about 6 or 11 or 14? As far the arbitrary 18 year old line, it's a decent one, imo. Sure, at 18 all bets are off. I think that many kids at 17 are probably quite capable of making their own decisions and indeed there are way to emancipate minors legally. > >> > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And > >> > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You're dodging the bigger issue that' CAIIA is getting at. Forget 17, what > about 6 or 11 or 14? 99 cents doesnt make a dollar. What about 14? in many staes a 14 year old can have an abortion without telling thier parents. Many can tried as adults depending on the crime. I guess you are goin to say "forget 14" >> >> > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And >> >> > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > "forget 14" You guessed wrong. Regarding abortion, I support mandatory reporting of abortions - not approval, but at least reporting. Ex, a 16 year old girl had sex with her boyfriend who's condom broke. She has high aspirations and doesn't want a child. The girld should keep the right to have an abortion but the parents should keep the right be informed. > The point is if JW refuses blood trans. they die. No problem with that. > They believe something, they are over 18, it's all right with me. I do > think they are fanatics, but do not care if their decisions hurt them, > since they don't think so. Sadly their non-JW family does care and does love them and are really hurt when they allow themselves to die for these Watchtower beliefs. To allow children to die for the treating of an org. is criminal. But when they try to decline proven medical help to their kids, > under 18, then I do not care who kids' parents are, I do what I need to do > and allowed to do by law, without their consent. GOOD FOR YOU! :-)))  SignatureNu.......... There are none more ignorant and useless, than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed. ======================================== > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or > only yourself? Most of the USA would consider JW's to be extremists. An extremist is a fanatic. As for your other question, WHAT assessment? The text below just talks about how JW's pose a "special challenge" and partially explainwhat their view on blood products is. It's like looking up at the sky on a cloudy day and saying it's cloudy. No sh.t. > did you get the point yet? Yeah, you didn't have one and still don't. >> What is your point? You've posted a 25 year old article about a >> religiously [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> Planck > > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And > > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or > > only yourself? > > Most of the USA would consider JW's to be extremists. An extremist is a > fanatic. Any documentation to that effect? It seem that you are saying that doctors consider JW's to be fanatics. >> > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And >> > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Any documentation to that effect? Webster's dictionary. > It seem that you are saying that > doctors consider JW's to be fanatics. I stated that most of the USA would consider JW's to be extremists. It's not a vague statement. >> > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And >> > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any documentation to that effect? It seem that you are saying that > doctors consider JW's to be fanatics. We're talking about a religious sect that would, by tenet, rather die than receive a readily available, safe and simple life-saving medical treatment. Yeh, I think that qualifies as fanaticism and so do most reasonable people - medical profession included. HMc > >> > Is it a valid assement or not, excluding the age of the article. And > >> > are you saying that the medical profesion consider JW's fanatical or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HMc As you state it is a religious sect that is faith based. They are also morally decietful when posting safety issues about blood. There objections are not safety based which makes such claims sacrilegious. > As you state it is a religious sect that is faith based. They are also > morally decietful when posting safety issues about blood. There objections > are not safety based which makes such claims sacrilegious. ======================= They are deceitful when they first enter your home as well. You don't find out the TRUTH for months in some cases. This cult is dangerous to society and not very popular all over the world. They destroy lives, old friendships, marriages and tear families apart. Those of us who try to warn people what this org of doomsdayers is all about get called liars, whores, pedophiles, idiots, drug addicts, demon worshippers and worse - we get *threatened.* SignatureDu........ http://silentlambs.org www.freeminds.org http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* Howard McCollister wrote > We're talking about a religious sect that would, by tenet, rather die than > receive a readily available, safe and simple life-saving medical treatment. After seeing this Chart: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diseases_contagious_from_blood_transfusion/death -types.htm Tell us hoe safe transfussion really are. The subject here is the medical treatment of Jw based on their belief. Nobody on this thread is interested in your anti-jw bias. Save your bigotry for a Klan's march. R. Nunnely wrote: > ======================= > They are deceitful when they first enter your home as well. You don't find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Du........ Robert wrote: > "Planck" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > >news:f61e0e1e0603271059oa9fd36fj68a1468ee73267d9@mail.gmail.com... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > transfusions. You place more faith on begging for man's medical advances > than on Gods words. That is incorrect, and show that you do not know Jw's well enough. They are quite aware that they could die, if the do not recieve a transfusion. They do not rely on some sort of miracle or special dispostion becaue they are JW's. If this was the case, they would not bother going to the doctors to begin with, or ask for alternatives, and asist in research > If a man dies because of blood loss and no transfusion was given would this > be God's will or man's inability to deal with JW? For a JW, it just applying a biblical principal. > You think the latter and it might be time for you to deal with your anxiety > by changing religion. Following a religion due to convinience? easy way out. However every JW makes his own decision wether to accept a blood transfusion or not.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.