JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[onewithhim]

"Other factors make bloodless surgery increasingly attractive. Transfusions can suppress the immune system, for example, leaving a patient open to infection, slower healing and a longer recovery time. 'Also, banked blood, after it's cooled and stored, doesn't have the capability of fresh blood to transport oxygen,' says Shander. 'We're just beginning to understand what it is we do when we give a transfusion.' Finally, there is the cost: at around $500 for each transfusion [in 1997], plus administrative add-ons, the total bill comes to between $1 billion and $2 billion annually, more than enough incentive to consider alternatives. Already, Englewood Hospital's managers claim, they have cut blood usage 20% and racked up savings in labor costs by lowering infection rates and shortening hospital stays."

Dr. Shander says: "I feel that once you become philosophically committed to practicing bloodless surgery, the benefits to patient and physician alike become more and more apparent."



(TIME, Fall 1997, p.76)

[polonius]

"Other factors make bloodless surgery increasingly attractive. Transfusions can suppress the immune system, for example, leaving a patient open to infection, slower healing and a longer recovery time. 'Also, banked blood, after it's cooled and stored, doesn't have the capability of fresh blood to transport oxygen,' says Shander. 'We're just beginning to understand what it is we do when we give a transfusion.' Finally, there is the cost: at around $500 for each transfusion [in 1997], plus administrative add-ons, the total bill comes to between $1 billion and $2 billion annually, more than enough incentive to consider alternatives. Already, Englewood Hospital's managers claim, they have cut blood usage 20% and racked up savings in labor costs by lowering infection rates and shortening hospital stays."

Dr. Shander says: "I feel that once you become philosophically committed to practicing bloodless surgery, the benefits to patient and physician alike become more and more apparent."



(TIME, Fall 1997, p.76)

RESPONSE: Unless, of course, the patient is one of the half million who bleed to death each year.


"Each year more than half a million people bleed to death following traffic accidents, combat wounds, and other severe trauma"

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/dec/01 ... blood-loss

[onewithhim]

"Other factors make bloodless surgery increasingly attractive. Transfusions can suppress the immune system, for example, leaving a patient open to infection, slower healing and a longer recovery time. 'Also, banked blood, after it's cooled and stored, doesn't have the capability of fresh blood to transport oxygen,' says Shander. 'We're just beginning to understand what it is we do when we give a transfusion.' Finally, there is the cost: at around $500 for each transfusion [in 1997], plus administrative add-ons, the total bill comes to between $1 billion and $2 billion annually, more than enough incentive to consider alternatives. Already, Englewood Hospital's managers claim, they have cut blood usage 20% and racked up savings in labor costs by lowering infection rates and shortening hospital stays."

Dr. Shander says: "I feel that once you become philosophically committed to practicing bloodless surgery, the benefits to patient and physician alike become more and more apparent."



(TIME, Fall 1997, p.76)

RESPONSE: Unless, of course, the patient is one of the half million who bleed to death each year.


"Each year more than half a million people bleed to death following traffic accidents, combat wounds, and other severe trauma"

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/dec/01 ... blood-loss

That doesn't negate my point that they probably would've died anyway, OR, that other things besides blood could have been given them. There are substitutes that work as well if not better.

In fact, the army is looking into using substitutes. And it has been knowledge for some time now that artificial blood is far better on the battlefield than true blood. We have to keep ourselves informed. There is much new thought out there about transfusions. Is it appreciated that all the info I posted is from the medical community itself (and not JWs)?

[onewithhim]

Synthetic substitutes now being tested may be safer, more practical and save even more lives.


"Hemolink: is just one of a half-dozen blood substitutes that are nearing the market after decades of research. "Known technically as 'oxygen therapeutics,' they aim to replace only oxygen-bearing red cells rather than whole blood with its additional plasma, platelets and white cells. Red cells are the most frequently transfused component of blood---tallying more than 12 million units a year---and the one that faces periodic shortfalls. Replacements could not only alleviate shortages, but also offer important advantages including longer shelf life and compatability with any blood type....The history of transfusions has come a long way since the early 1800s....Two devastating bloodborne diseases---AIDS and hepatitis C---were unwittingly spread to tens of thousands of people by donor blood before the pathogens were identified. And...'we can only screen for diseases we know about.'

"Oxygen therapeutics could reduce the risks. These blood substitutes fall into two general types. The first is a synthetic chemical called a perfluorocarbon, or PFC, which would not risk contamination by bloodborne pathogens. The second type is based on actual hemoglobin extracted from discarded human or cow blood [which JWs would not take; brackets mine].

"For practicality, oxygen therapeutics also excel. Banked blood lasts only 42 days, has to be refrigerated and must be cross-matched to patients to avoid negative reactions with incompatible blood types. Oxygen therapeutics lasts months to years at room temperature and lack blood-typing proteins, which are found on the coats of red cells. 'It's one size fits all,' says chemist David Klein of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., which makes a PFC called Oxygent. That could make them particularly useful in ambulances, which cannot carry large stocks of refrigerated blood, and also on the battlefield. What's really intriquing about oxygen therapeutics, though, is that they appear to deliver oxygen to areas inaccessible to red blood cells. Both PFCs and hemoglobins are a fraction of the size of a red cell. Early evidence is that they might slip past a clot that was causing a heart attack or stroke and deliver crucial air to oxygen-starved tissue.

"PFCs present additional possibilities. Oxygent consists of tiny PFC molecules suspended in coated droplets. PFCs are slippery substances that easily shift around in the droplet, making space for oxygen molecules to move in or out, depending on the concentration of oxygen in surrounding tissues. Because all gases move from areas of high concentration to low, PFCs may prove useful in carrying other gases, too. 'Heart-lung machines used in bypass surgery create tiny air bubbles in the bloodstream,' says Dr. Bruce Speiss, vice chair of anesthesiology at the Medical College of Virginia. 'About a third of patients suffer permanently diminished mental function as a result.' But Speiss says PFCs could absorb these bubbles, reducing neurological problems.

"The U.S. Navy is intrigued by the idea that Oxygent could treat the bends by absorbing dissolved nitrogen in the blood. Animal studies indicate it would."

("The Quest for Artificial Blood," Anne Underwood, Newsweek, June 24, 2002)


These things will take years to gain widespread approval, and, I think, will possibly be quashed by Big Pharma. My opinion. Selling blood is big business.



.[/i]

[polonius]

Synthetic substitutes now being tested may be safer, more practical and save even more lives.


"Hemolink: is just one of a half-dozen blood substitutes that are nearing the market after decades of research. "Known technically as 'oxygen therapeutics,' they aim to replace only oxygen-bearing red cells rather than whole blood with its additional plasma, platelets and white cells. Red cells are the most frequently transfused component of blood---tallying more than 12 million units a year---and the one that faces periodic shortfalls. Replacements could not only alleviate shortages, but also offer important advantages including longer shelf life and compatability with any blood type....The history of transfusions has come a long way since the early 1800s....Two devastating bloodborne diseases---AIDS and hepatitis C---were unwittingly spread to tens of thousands of people by donor blood before the pathogens were identified. And...'we can only screen for diseases we know about.'

"Oxygen therapeutics could reduce the risks. These blood substitutes fall into two general types. The first is a synthetic chemical called a perfluorocarbon, or PFC, which would not risk contamination by bloodborne pathogens. The second type is based on actual hemoglobin extracted from discarded human or cow blood [which JWs would not take; brackets mine].

"For practicality, oxygen therapeutics also excel. Banked blood lasts only 42 days, has to be refrigerated and must be cross-matched to patients to avoid negative reactions with incompatible blood types. Oxygen therapeutics lasts months to years at room temperature and lack blood-typing proteins, which are found on the coats of red cells. 'It's one size fits all,' says chemist David Klein of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., which makes a PFC called Oxygent. That could make them particularly useful in ambulances, which cannot carry large stocks of refrigerated blood, and also on the battlefield. What's really intriquing about oxygen therapeutics, though, is that they appear to deliver oxygen to areas inaccessible to red blood cells. Both PFCs and hemoglobins are a fraction of the size of a red cell. Early evidence is that they might slip past a clot that was causing a heart attack or stroke and deliver crucial air to oxygen-starved tissue.

"PFCs present additional possibilities. Oxygent consists of tiny PFC molecules suspended in coated droplets. PFCs are slippery substances that easily shift around in the droplet, making space for oxygen molecules to move in or out, depending on the concentration of oxygen in surrounding tissues. Because all gases move from areas of high concentration to low, PFCs may prove useful in carrying other gases, too. 'Heart-lung machines used in bypass surgery create tiny air bubbles in the bloodstream,' says Dr. Bruce Speiss, vice chair of anesthesiology at the Medical College of Virginia. 'About a third of patients suffer permanently diminished mental function as a result.' But Speiss says PFCs could absorb these bubbles, reducing neurological problems.

"The U.S. Navy is intrigued by the idea that Oxygent could treat the bends by absorbing dissolved nitrogen in the blood. Animal studies indicate it would."

("The Quest for Artificial Blood," Anne Underwood, Newsweek, June 24, 2002)


These things will take years to gain widespread approval, and, I think, will possibly be quashed by Big Pharma. My opinion. Selling blood is big business.



.[/i]

RESPONSE: I don't believe Hemaliks is an artificial blood, but rather a blood collection system. Perhaps you should more fully research what you write.

MODERN BLOOD COLLECTION
Simple, Convenient, Affordable

Meet the HemoLink, a device for simplified collection of blood samples. Our lead product collects enough blood for a broad range of diagnostic applications.


RESPONSE: Please note that Underwood's article is now about 15 years old.

If you look it up you will find that Oxigent is no longer being developed in the United States nor Frace. The project was passed to China but they have taken not action on it.

I don't think hemorrhaging patients really want to wait for a blood substitute (and die waiting) since a viable alternative has existed for some time.

Synthetic substitutes now being tested may be safer, more practical and save even more lives.

Maybe someday a blood substitute will be available, but not now.

[polonius]

May JWs now receive a major blood component – albumin without committing any sin? Or is this claim in error? And what about immune globulin?

http://ajwrb.org/science/the-watchtower-on-albumin

“While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.� Awake 06/22/82 p. 25 “Emphasis added.

Explanation given:

Take note of how the WTS announces this major shift in policy. The average Jehovah’s Witness surely had no idea that God had suddenly changed his thinking about albumin, mysteriously conveyed this message to the Governing Body in Brooklyn, and that the use of albumin was no longer a gross sin requiring an investigation by a judicial committee with possible sanctions (disfellowshipping/excommunication). It would be nearly eight more years before Witnesses would begin to question this dramatic but veiled shift in WTS policy.

[onewithhim]

Synthetic substitutes now being tested may be safer, more practical and save even more lives.


"Hemolink: is just one of a half-dozen blood substitutes that are nearing the market after decades of research. "Known technically as 'oxygen therapeutics,' they aim to replace only oxygen-bearing red cells rather than whole blood with its additional plasma, platelets and white cells. Red cells are the most frequently transfused component of blood---tallying more than 12 million units a year---and the one that faces periodic shortfalls. Replacements could not only alleviate shortages, but also offer important advantages including longer shelf life and compatability with any blood type....The history of transfusions has come a long way since the early 1800s....Two devastating bloodborne diseases---AIDS and hepatitis C---were unwittingly spread to tens of thousands of people by donor blood before the pathogens were identified. And...'we can only screen for diseases we know about.'

"Oxygen therapeutics could reduce the risks. These blood substitutes fall into two general types. The first is a synthetic chemical called a perfluorocarbon, or PFC, which would not risk contamination by bloodborne pathogens. The second type is based on actual hemoglobin extracted from discarded human or cow blood [which JWs would not take; brackets mine].

"For practicality, oxygen therapeutics also excel. Banked blood lasts only 42 days, has to be refrigerated and must be cross-matched to patients to avoid negative reactions with incompatible blood types. Oxygen therapeutics lasts months to years at room temperature and lack blood-typing proteins, which are found on the coats of red cells. 'It's one size fits all,' says chemist David Klein of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., which makes a PFC called Oxygent. That could make them particularly useful in ambulances, which cannot carry large stocks of refrigerated blood, and also on the battlefield. What's really intriquing about oxygen therapeutics, though, is that they appear to deliver oxygen to areas inaccessible to red blood cells. Both PFCs and hemoglobins are a fraction of the size of a red cell. Early evidence is that they might slip past a clot that was causing a heart attack or stroke and deliver crucial air to oxygen-starved tissue.

"PFCs present additional possibilities. Oxygent consists of tiny PFC molecules suspended in coated droplets. PFCs are slippery substances that easily shift around in the droplet, making space for oxygen molecules to move in or out, depending on the concentration of oxygen in surrounding tissues. Because all gases move from areas of high concentration to low, PFCs may prove useful in carrying other gases, too. 'Heart-lung machines used in bypass surgery create tiny air bubbles in the bloodstream,' says Dr. Bruce Speiss, vice chair of anesthesiology at the Medical College of Virginia. 'About a third of patients suffer permanently diminished mental function as a result.' But Speiss says PFCs could absorb these bubbles, reducing neurological problems.

"The U.S. Navy is intrigued by the idea that Oxygent could treat the bends by absorbing dissolved nitrogen in the blood. Animal studies indicate it would."

("The Quest for Artificial Blood," Anne Underwood, Newsweek, June 24, 2002)


These things will take years to gain widespread approval, and, I think, will possibly be quashed by Big Pharma. My opinion. Selling blood is big business.



.[/i]

RESPONSE: I don't believe Hemaliks is an artificial blood, but rather a blood collection system. Perhaps you should more fully research what you write.

MODERN BLOOD COLLECTION
Simple, Convenient, Affordable

Meet the HemoLink, a device for simplified collection of blood samples. Our lead product collects enough blood for a broad range of diagnostic applications.


RESPONSE: Please note that Underwood's article is now about 15 years old.

If you look it up you will find that Oxigent is no longer being developed in the United States nor Frace. The project was passed to China but they have taken not action on it.

I don't think hemorrhaging patients really want to wait for a blood substitute (and die waiting) since a viable alternative has existed for some time.

Synthetic substitutes now being tested may be safer, more practical and save even more lives.

Maybe someday a blood substitute will be available, but not now.

What I wrote is directly from an article in a national magazine. It does not conflict with what you say, and that might be apparent to you if you read more carefully.

Blood substitutes ARE available now, and I have posted links to the websites of various hospitals that practice bloodless medicine. Strangely, no one seems to want to check them out.


I recently had an emergency operation on a blockage in my intestines. The staff had no problem with my stand on no blood. The surgeon performed the operation, which was a major one, without blood and he said he does it "all the time" with no problems.


You make statements that are not really true. Just go to the Wikipedia article on Oxygent and anyone can see that what you say does not touch on the truth. It brings out that there ARE substitutions available instead of blood, and the research on Oxygent has not completely eliminated it from medicinal use because there are good, desirable things about it. Check out the article. Type in "Oxygent."

Here are websites of just a couple of the hospitals that see the benefits of bloodless medicine:
www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery

https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patien ... e-medicine


.

[onewithhim]

May JWs now receive a major blood component – albumin without committing any sin? Or is this claim in error? And what about immune globulin?

http://ajwrb.org/science/the-watchtower-on-albumin

“While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.� Awake 06/22/82 p. 25 “Emphasis added.

Explanation given:

Take note of how the WTS announces this major shift in policy. The average Jehovah’s Witness surely had no idea that God had suddenly changed his thinking about albumin, mysteriously conveyed this message to the Governing Body in Brooklyn, and that the use of albumin was no longer a gross sin requiring an investigation by a judicial committee with possible sanctions (disfellowshipping/excommunication). It would be nearly eight more years before Witnesses would begin to question this dramatic but veiled shift in WTS policy.

The WTS gets castigated for one stand and then gets castigated for altering that viewpoint. It can't win with you. Anyway, the Governing Body came to the conclusion that TECHNICALLY, taking a component of blood is not taking blood. "Blood" is made up of these components, but each component on its own is not blood. It was left to our own consciences to decide if taking a component would to US be the same as taking blood. My conscience rejected that whole idea of the innocence of components, and I wouldn't take water that came from separating out the components of blood.



.

[JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE: Unless, of course, the patient is one of the half million who bleed to death each year.


"Each year more than half a million people bleed to death following traffic accidents, combat wounds, and other severe trauma"

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/dec/01 ... blood-loss

Why so many when blood transfusions have been available for years? Are you suggesting that the one and a half million people were all Jehovah's Witnesses or people that refused blood transfusion or that blood transfusions, even if administered did not save them? Wouldn't this prove that blood transfusions in themselves cannot save someone that is or has lost so much blood that organ failure is inevitable?

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS and ...VACCINES ,

[Justin108]

QUESTION How do we know the bible (canon) is the word of God?

The contents of the bible present convincing evidence of its Divine origin.

#1 It claims to be the word of God.

1. So does the Quran
2. Literally anyone can make this claim. I can write a book right now and claim it came from God

The bible contains scientific detail that would not have been readily available to the writers and implies authorship from a higher source. For example, at a time when it was generally believe that the earth was flat and must have had visible means of support the bible describes the earth as a "globe" (sphere) that is suspended in space ie has not visible means of support.

The ancient Greeks figured this out without God's help.

I always find it amusing how when the Bible agrees with science then "it proves the Bible is the word of God" but when the Bible disagrees with science then either
a) the text is "misinterpreted"
viewtopic.php?p=836617#836617

or b) science is wrong
viewtopic.php?p=850325#850325


Just out of curiosity... how would you respond to a Muslim claiming the Quran predicted the Big Bang theory?

#3 It records history before it has happened. The bible records historical détails and events long before (in some cases hundreds of years) before they happened. This presents its most convincing evidence of Divine authorship since humans do not have the ability to see into the future.

Can you perhaps
1) provide the predictive verses
2) prove the predictions came true after the predictions were made