Donate SIGN UP

Has the medical profession at last woke up to the dangers of blood transfusion? - Acts 15: 20, 29

Avatar Image
Mymom | 13:07 Sun 19th Feb 2012 | Religion & Spirituality
75 Answers
This is a trailer for a major new TV documentary scheduled
for release in the spring of 2012 called: Media URL: http://youtu.be/h1rCBcJut9c
Description:
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 75 of 75rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Mymom. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//So who's making this 'major' TV documentary and when can I watch it?//

I'd be interested in an answer to that. I tried to find out too - but to no avail.
i have recently attended a funeral of a JW who refused a transfusion! left two little brainwashed kids too! x
@MyMom.

What an asinine analogy to attempt to equate blood and blood transfusion with alcohol and an IV infusion of alcohol.The only reason you JWs are continually having to tie yourselves into rhetorical knots and attempt to create such ludicrous parallels is because your book does not allow you to adapt or to grow.

Please state, for the record, how exactly JWs came to "invent" cell salvage"? I think, rather than the Mormoms co-opting the dead into their religion, you are, on behalf of JWs, taking the credit for medical advances that were developed for all, not just at the behest of JWs. Normovolaemic haemodilution, preoperative autologues donation, intra- operative cell salvage, filtration and reinfusion are all techniques designed primarily to reduce the quantity of allogeneic blood required, not specifically because the JWs willed it.
Hallelujah!!!

Have they all finally 'fessed up to being JWs?

Praise the Lord..........or not *

*delete as appropriate
I suspect it was more likely many of these techniques were at least first proposed or developed for use in fields of conflict where there would be severe difficulties in obtaining a supply of blood for transfusion., To stabilise injured combatants until they could be transferred to a specialist centre.
Jack, have my doubts about Truthabounds. In his world truth clearly doesn't abound sufficiently to enable him to express it.
@ Rowan - at least in part thats true - but more generallly, in severe trauma cases, something needed to be done to aid in maintaining plasma volume.

Personal anecdote. Many years ago, we had a jumper from a multistorey car park in the town near the hospital where I was working. Whilst the various surgical teams did what they could in an effort to save the young mans life, we had to support their blood transfusion needs. We went through 70 units of blood in around 5 hours - That meant returning all blood earmarked for patients on the elective surgery lists, cancelling all prebooked elective surgery lists, getting additional stock from the regional blood centre, and using all our own stock of uncrossmatched blood- all for one patient, all in the space of 3 hours, and all , in the end, for nothing. Had there been no use of cell salvage or autologous blood transfusion practice, the final tally of units would have been very much higher.

You cannot possibly hope to treat such badly damaged patients with anything other than blood if you have any hope of keeping them alive. I guess in such circumstances, the JW approach would be to shrug their shoulders, look up to heaven and proclaim that its Gods will.
Birdie@ I did not say JWs invented the cell salvage machine, I said it was instigated, and that some machines were financed by JWs for some hospitals.
I don't have all the details as to when the documentary is to be shown. As soon as I find out I will let you all know.
When reports of deaths of JWs who refuse Blood are reported, not all the facts are given. In many cases, it is headlines for the papers. How about when blood is given and people die - nothing is said about that
Are you a JW, Truthabounds?

A straightforward question requiring only a one word answer.....
That's because when people have blood and die people know everything that can possibly be done to save them has been done. When you omit something which has such a long history of success and somone dies then you haven't done everything possible. Simple. A bit like you.
Don't hold your breath, Jack. He's been asked before. Strange how people come here with the intention of impressing others with their beliefs, and yet are reluctant to confess the brand of their chosen religion. I wonder why? It doesn't make it easy for potential converts to investigate further, that's for sure. ;o)
Usuially if blood is given it is when the patient was in a condition where death was likely anyway so the death is due to that not the transfusion,
fatalities.

http://bloodjournal.h...tent/113/15/3406.full

if you can understand some of the article in the attached link (and I don't mean you Lazygun because I know its your area of expertise) you might get a perspective on the real risks... seen in terms of population size death rates from some complications are statistically negligible and others so low that you have more chance of dying of boredom reading these threads
-- answer removed --

61 to 75 of 75rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Has the medical profession at last woke up to the dangers of blood transfusion? - Acts 15: 20, 29

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.