Jehovah’s Witnesses Blood Transfusion Confusion

Madison Country Courier ^ | 16 September 2011 | Margo

[Cronos]

Building on Jim Coufal’s “The Role of Fear and Guilt in Religion,” it is a simple fact that the Bible does not prohibit blood transfusions. If you are bleeding to death, it is more dangerous to refuse a blood transfusion than to take one.

Bloodless surgeries are great if they can be elective. One-third of all trauma deaths are from blood loss.

Jehovah’s Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion; to say the issue is a ‘personal conscience matter’ is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits.

..Estimates of the number of men, women and children who have died since the Jehovah Witness blood ban inception in 1945 range between 150,000 and 250,000.

[Cronos]

Ah, trying to evade the topic earlier. Didn't you read the title of this article? it says Jehovah’s Witnesses Blood Transfusion Confusion

YOU first posted posts that say that blood transfusions are not necessary.

When I gave you examples where they ARE necessary, you taunt and say I can't say that because I'm not a doctor. So I asked a certified Medical practitioner and he says that blood transfusions are not only medically necessary but ethically mandatory, i.e., without them you would be condemning a patient to death.

you don't have an answer for that?? Here it is medically proven to you that blood transfusions are at times a medical necessity.

But, I'm willing to listen to whatever biblical justifications you Jehovah's Witnesses use to argue against blood transfusions -- please tell us

[Cronos]

Since your argument against this topic (that Jehovah's Witness ban on blood transfusions is wrong) have been proven false to you by a medical practitioner, on what basis do you a Jehovah's Witness argue that blood transfusions are a bad thing?

[Cronos]

Count-your-change -- Since your argument against this topic (that Jehovah's Witness ban on blood transfusions is wrong) have been proven false to you by a medical practitioner, on what basis do you a Jehovah's Witness argue that blood transfusions are a bad thing?

Your 'medical reasoning' has fallen flat -- blood transfusions are at times a necessity, or the patient will die

however, if you want to give us your philosophical reasoning for why you Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with blood transfusions, go ahead, I'm listening.

[hawkaw]

If you wish to learn about the JW's and when they can take whole blood transfusions; learn which "components" of blood are allowed or banned based, not on the bible but, on how their govenerning body defines certain blood "components"; and learn the ever changing blood policy, I always encourage people to visit this site - http://www.ajwrb.org.

Unfortunately those in this destructive group have been trained to think that what is on this website is part of the devil and will close their minds to it. But maybe it might reach a few.

[Cronos]

In fact, how can you Jehovah's Witnesses justify no blood transfusions yet eat or use animal fat if you'll take that wrong interpretation of Leviticus 3:17 17It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Do you argue against eating fat?

[Cronos]

http://www.ajwrb.org.

Thanks, but I would like to hear the explanation directly from a Jehovah's Witness like count-your-change.

[Cronos]

And thank you for the link, hawkaw -- that will be invaluable to help our jehovah's witness friend here --> http://www.ajwrb.org.

[count-your-change]

“I'm listening.”

No you aren't, not now and you haven't been and therein is the reason I don't respond to your inquiries.

I asked if a serious discussion was wanted when you came up with some silly “scenarios”. I either gave or pointed you to where your questions could be answered,(and now others have too). Since you've rejected that, so be it, you're on your own.

I'm not going to wrangle with you like some fish monger in the street over your useless comments and attempts at cleverness.

[Cronos]

Hardly -- you asked for medical proof -- i gave it to you. you have been shown that medically blood transfusion is at times a necessity.

So, I ask you to provide your Jehovah's Witness philosophical reasoning for not allowing blood transfusions

[Cronos]

In fact you started this conversation like a fish-monger by comparing blood transfusion to abortion!

In post 14 you said As with abortion due to medical necessity transfusion of blood for medical necessity is a term proving obsolete.

Then, in post 35, Dr. Brian Kopp refuted your statement by pointing out that Yes, there most definitely are times when blood transfusions are not only medically necessary but ethically mandatory, i.e., without them you would be condemning a patient to death

So, do you retract your statement that abortion is the same as blood transfusion?

[count-your-change]

Oh dear! This is almost too much fun to stop now since you said:

“So, do you retract your statement that abortion is the same as blood transfusion?”

That’s your statement not mine so I have nothing to retract, do I? Of course not.

Would you like to retract it?

Thanks to Dr. Kopp for his opinion. I’m sure he’s a very good podiatrist. Should I have any questions on podiatry I will seek him out.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

And I’ll seek you out when I have any question on anti-Catholic JW bigotry ;-)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Pearls before swine.

No one arguing to prevent medically and ethically necessary blood transfusions (besides their voluminous anti-Catholic ranting) is worthy of further public debate on this forum.

[Cronos]

That’s your statement not mine so I have nothing to retract,

Really -- do you mean to say that you forget what you posted in post 14 of this very thread? As with abortion due to medical necessity transfusion of blood for medical necessity is a term proving obsolete.

So, do you retract your statement that abortion is the same as blood transfusion?

[count-your-change]

There's nothing in my statement that equates abortion with transfusion and your repeated insistence that it means such doesn't change anything.
I choose my words carefully and playing ‘gotcha’ doesn't work.

[Cronos]

Really? your words As with abortion due to medical necessity transfusion of blood for medical necessity is a term proving obsolete. directly compare abortion with blood transfusion.

Do you still insist that blood transfusion is not at times necessary?

Do you have any biblical or your Jehovah's Witness philosophy proof for why blood transfusion is not good?

[count-your-change]

Do you have a problem with the English language? You know modifiers, predicates, subject, adjectives, etc.?

I ask because you’re looking at a sentence in plain and understandable English and yet cannot put the parts of the sentence together properly and extract it’s meaning.

Need help?

[Cronos]

Lets make it simple for you and to the topic of this thread: do you say that blood transfusion is never necessary?

What Jehovah's Witness philosophical reasoning do you give for this?

[count-your-change]

That would be refreshing.

No, I don't (and haven't) said transfusion is never necessary.

My turn for a question: Can open heart surgery be performed without blood transfusion? and as a corollary,
Has the use of blood transfusion in many cases INCREASED morbidity and mortality post operatively?

[Cronos]

To your first question: I don't know

To your second question: it depends

to the point of this article, I can say for a fact that in the case of accidents etc where a person has lost a lot of blood it is NECESSARY to have a blood transfusion or the person will die. Your Jehovah's Witness point of banning blood transfusions completely is wrong on this count