23 Sep 10
I think about the story where Jesus said which is right? It's the sabbath day and your neighbors ox just fell into a well. Are you to say "Well it's the sabbath day therefore I can't help my neighbor get his ox out of the well!" Or are you to do what is right and help your neighbor? It's never lawful to do evil. To save a life is the right thing to do in all cases anything beyond that is evil plain and simple.
Manny
23 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71of course killing persons by their thousands through infected blood was what? justified? clever? necessary so that others may live?
I think about the story where Jesus said which is right? It's the sabbath day and your neighbors ox just fell into a well. Are you to say "Well it's the sabbath day therefore I can't help my neighbor get his ox out of the well!" Or are you to do what is right and help your neighbor? It's never lawful to do evil. To save a life is the right thing to do in all cases anything beyond that is evil plain and simple.
Manny
June 2005, the World Health Organization acknowledged: “The chance of receiving a safe transfusion . . . varies enormously from one country to another.”
A “Circular of Information” prepared jointly by three U.S. blood agencies states on its first page: “WARNING: Because whole blood and blood components are made from human blood, they may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents, eg, viruses. . . . Careful donor selection and available laboratory tests do not eliminate the hazard.”
Regarding a 2001 Canadian study, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported that thousands of blood transfusions involved near-misses because of “collecting blood samples from the wrong patient, mislabelling samples and requesting blood for the wrong patient.” Such mistakes cost the lives of at least 441 people in the United States between 1995 and 2001.
Dailey’s Notes on Blood: “Some physicians maintain that allogeneic blood [blood from another human] is a dangerous drug and that its use would be banned if it were evaluated by the same standards as other drugs.”
Professor Bruce Spiess said the following about transfusing a primary blood component into patients undergoing heart surgery: “There are few if any [medical] articles that support transfusion actually improving patient outcome.” In fact, he writes that many such transfusions “may do more harm than good in virtually every instance except trauma,” increasing “the risk of pneumonia, infections, heart attacks and strokes.”
yes amazing what health experts themselves actually say.
23 Sep 10
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can pretty much argue that everything should be prohibitted given your warped usage of stats.
what part of the right to self determination did you miss? what part of tens of thousands of persons having died as a result of transfused blood are you yet unable to comprehend? what part of trying to understand without judgement did you not perceive? what part of we have openly discussed out stance and don't care whether you agree with it or not that went over the top of your head?
- People should all be denied water since water-borne diseases, floods, drownings, etc... have killed millions...MILLIONS!!!!
- People should be denied access to their parents at a young age because thousands, perhaps millions of children are abused and in some cases killed by their parents every year; these lives would have been saved by cutting them off from such vile people.
- People should be denied...[feel free to insert something seemingly innocuous and I'll contrive, in the spirit of your arguments, a situation which represents it as a great evil]
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis thread is really making you look bad. Firstly, as bbarr already commented, your stance does not even hinge on whether or not blood transfusion is a medically effectual technique. Secondly, the only thing you have demonstrated by lingering on this point is that you are a shameless cherry picker. The observations you have offered, even if true, simply would not support a blanket rejection of blood transfusions, since they fail in a major way to account for numerous relevant considerations regarding the (ultima facie) justificatory status of such procedures.
what part of blood has caused tens of thousands of serious injuries and death regardless of any correlations that you would like to draw don't you understand? you reasoning is akin to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who stated that humanity would thank him for his genetic experiments, is that what you are saying, that these deaths are a necessary bi- ...[text shortened]... crash, in your case, it would be a reasonable proposition. You people are truly, truly sick.
23 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloshameless, yes! shameless in exposing you hypocrisy!
This thread is really making you look bad. Firstly, as bbarr already commented, your stance does not even hinge on whether or not blood transfusion is a medically effectual technique. Secondly, the only thing you have demonstrated by lingering on this point is that you are a shameless cherry picker. The observations you have offered, even if true, simp ...[text shortened]... us relevant considerations regarding the (ultima facie) justificatory status of such procedures.
can you tell me something i don't know? just for a change? and since when did it become inappropriate to cite expert testimony to substantiate ones case? the fact of the matter remains, which you people have consistently failed to acknowledge, on every basis, irrespective of any ethical issues involved, that blood transfusion carries a risk which varies immensely from country to country and that it is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, are you denying those facts?
Had you been intellectually honest men, you would have acknowledged those facts, but no you have sought to justify the use and no amount of recourse to my ethical stance or correlation to other figures can negate those facts.
I also deny that i have been made to look bad, indeed, i thank God for the opportunity to bring this practice and its ill effects to light so that others may be informed!
His name is not bbarr, But Barrs Irn Bru and i flick your post away as if it were a fly near my Chardonnay!
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMake sure you keep an accurate log of the amount of time you've spent embarrassing yourself here. You'll need it for your field service report to your JW overlords.
shameless, yes! shameless in exposing you hypocrisy!
can you tell me something i don't know? just for a change? and since when did it become inappropriate to cite expert testimony to substantiate ones case? the fact of the matter remains, which you people have consistently failed to acknowledge, on every basis, irrespective of any ethical issu ...[text shortened]... not bbarr, But Barrs Irn Bru and i flick your post away as if it were a fly near my Chardonnay!
23 Sep 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Agergis it not a common practice to cite expert testimony on ones behalf to substantiate ones case? indeed, i deny that such an action is warped. The only thing that i have sought to establish is that
You can pretty much argue that [b]everything should be prohibitted given your warped usage of stats.
- People should all be denied water since water-borne diseases, floods, drownings, etc... have killed millions...MILLIONS!!!!
- People should be denied access to their parents at a young age because thousands, perhaps millions of children are abused and ...[text shortened]... 'll contrive, in the spirit of your arguments, a situation which represents it as a great evil][/b]
1. blood transfusions carry a risk,
2.that screening is not nor ever can be 100% effective,
3.that transfusion has caused the premature deaths of tens of thousands of innocent persons
4.that regulations regarding its practice vary immensely from country to country
5.that if it were a drug and subject to the same rigorous testing as other drugs its use would be banned
6.in at least one instance a medical professional has stated that it is has in many cases done more harm than good and may be a contributing factor towards other ailments
which of these are you disputing and on what grounds? and we have not even touched the ethical issues as yet!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are clearly not following. Everyone has readily acknowledged the risks of blood transfusions. You're not winning any ground here.
is it not a common practice to cite expert testimony on ones behalf to substantiate ones case? indeed, i deny that such an action is warped. The only thing that i have sought to establish is that
1. blood transfusions carry a risk,
2.that screening is not nor ever can be 100% effective,
3.that transfusion has caused the premature deaths of ...[text shortened]... e are you disputing and on what grounds? and we have not even touched the ethical issues as yet!
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis thread has about 20 something pages.
i thought that Galvo has already explained? has no one yet asked us why we refuse blood transfusions? could it be the case? how polite of you Zahlansi, but i still squint my eyes when reading your texts!
i will not read the entirety of it especially since there are numerous threads of discussion and most don't involve or concern me. for example i don't need to take part in rajk's crusade against jw's.
so answer me or deny me, just don't beat around the bush. in the moment it took you to tell me galveston already answered this you could have just given me the answer.
why do jw's refuse blood transfusions?
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzimedical reasons (already outlined), religious belief and the right of self determination.
this thread has about 20 something pages.
i will not read the entirety of it especially since there are numerous threads of discussion and most don't involve or concern me. for example i don't need to take part in rajk's crusade against jw's.
so answer me or deny me, just don't beat around the bush. in the moment it took you to tell me galveston alre ...[text shortened]... d this you could have just given me the answer.
why do jw's refuse blood transfusions?
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiecommon, be truthful. you are justifying an already made decision. this is not rational. you made that decision because you thought it was right, because the grand poobahs of the watchtower told you so. the above are simply excuses you found later supporting your decision. kind of like how creationists already believe noah's flood really took place and then they are finding evidence to support their decision.
is it not a common practice to cite expert testimony on ones behalf to substantiate ones case? indeed, i deny that such an action is warped. The only thing that i have sought to establish is that
1. blood transfusions carry a risk,
2.that screening is not nor ever can be 100% effective,
3.that transfusion has caused the premature deaths of ...[text shortened]... e are you disputing and on what grounds? and we have not even touched the ethical issues as yet!
the problem is that when you already have the end result it is quite easy to force mostly anything to "fit".
1-4 are true, which is similar to "cars are deathtraps if used incorrectly"
5 is incorrect, or at least wrongly tested. are you saying that morphine is allowed in some cases but blood might be banned? why?
6 o my. one instance. surely that means a lot. i also have a nobel prize winner that said eugenics are a good idea. i have another one trying to get funding for telepathy.
but i am sure you already answered these with the usual "it is a conspiracy" and so on.
all this doesn't concern me. what i want to know is why do you think blood transfusions are bad from the jw's point of view. even if you don't share that view.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei know religious belief is one, i want to know the specifics. like bible verses, religious debates, a jw dreaming of jesus telling him the new blood transfusion thingy is bad for you, anything.
medical reasons (already outlined), religious belief and the right of self determination.
and incidentally, you cannot use self determination here. self determination can be used to justify dyeing your hair pink or green or piercing your shlong(though even that is pushing it). not "i don't wear a seatbelt and i drive with 150 km/h because i am exercising my right to self determination". not refusing a blood donation when you are bleeding out of 10 gunshot holes.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KWell what we are trying to establish here is simple. First that blood transfusions, as we all acknowledge can be dangerous in many different ways. They may be getting safer thru the medical field doing more and more things to test for problems and correct that, but the fact is there is still a risk.
You are clearly not following. Everyone has readily acknowledged the risks of blood transfusions. You're not winning any ground here.
And as more and more blood substitutes are made for use instead of blood, it is something that all should look at first instead of real blood.
And one of the two reasons God does not want us to handle or touch or eat blood is because of the diseases that it can carry and God could see the inherent dangers to humans if we did.
And the other that we are trying to help all to see is that God views blood as something secred to him wether it be just as a health risk or as the Bible explains the soul of a person being in the blood.
Now that may be something we don't understand and may never really get what that means to God. But because of the commands to abstain from blood ( and there is no fine print at the bottom of that scripture with an exemption list for uses that are ok ) it is an issue that we have to take his word and commands on that there must be more to it that we may not understand. It would be no different then what Abraham no doubt experianced with a command from God to kill his son Isaac.
He had no clue why God asked him to do that but he would have having faith in God's wisdom or purpose or plan to make things right in the future with the resurrection.
So we decide to have faith in God that he by a million times over knows more then we do on this subject and that not only does he promise a resurrection but actually had his son Jesus show us it will happen.
So until his command changes about the use of blood we follow his command to abstain from it.