i never thought that being overly religious would be detrimental. for sure the doctors already informed them the importance of having a transfusion, but still they refused it. cant the government intervene if the doctors deem the parents incompetent? i mean the babies cant decide for themselves and the parents are bound by religion. ewan. hehe. just my 2 cents.

have you read the story of joy castro? i almost cried, but then relieved knowing that she suffered that kind of abused yet survived.

http://www.joycastro.com/TruthBook.htm

hsam…………

tika lang poh.if we base on medecine.tama lamang ang ginawa ng mga saksi ni Jehova..alam nyo kung bakit?marami kang makukuhang sakit pag mag blood transfusion.too many way nman na paraan na pampalit ng blood transfusion.research nyu nlng po.oo nga mabubuhay ka nga gamit ang blood transfusion pero may ibang sakit nman na paghihirapan.at nakakalabag ka pa sa sinabi ng BIBLE..mayroon ngang screening sa dugo bago isalin sa tao.pero 100% ba e2 na malinis?

anong basis sa ‘medicine’ na nagsasabing ‘tama ang ginagawa ng mga saksi ni hehoba’?

kung maraming makukuhang sakit pag nagpa blood transfusion … mga ilan yun? bigay ka ng isang example.

kung hindi ikaw ang recipient ng blood transfusion kundi ikaw yung blood donor, ano ang sakit o paghihirap ang mangyayari sayo?

kung masama ito, dapat pala ipatigil na natin ang ginagawa ng RED CROSS ngayon din! ora mismo! ganun ba?

ano ano ang many ways pamalit sa blood transfusion? bigay ka din isa.

ano ang nilalabag sa BIBLE kung mag donate ka ng dugo? o magpasalin ka ng dugo? ano bang sinasabi dun? saang verse?

kung merong screening bago magdonate o magpasalin ng dugo at nakapasa naman, masama pa rin ba?

kelangan ba laging 100%? paano kung 99.99 % lang na malinis?

“Transfusion medicine will continue to be a little like walking through a tropical rainforest, where the known paths are clear but still require careful navigation, and new and unseen threats may still lurk around the next corner to trap the unwary.”
—Ian M. Franklin, professor of transfusion medicine.
===========================

Some countries claim that their blood supply has never been safer. Yet, there are still reasons for caution. 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.”

=============================
Peter Carolan, the senior officer of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, say: “Absolute guarantees on blood supplies can never be given.” He adds: “There will always be new infections for which at that moment there is no test.”
=============================
Speaking at a medical conference in Prague, Czech Republic, in April 2005, Dr. Harvey G. Klein of the U.S. National Institutes of Health called that prospect sobering. He added: “The blood component collectors would be scarcely better prepared to interdict a transfusion-transmitted epidemic than they were during the early days of AIDS.”
=============================
What are the greatest transfusion-related threats to patients in developed countries? Errors and immunologic reactions. 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.
=============================
“Think once, twice and three times before transfusing patients.”—Professor Ian M. Franklin

============================
Death by TRALI

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), first reported in the early 1990’s, is a life-threatening immune reaction following a blood transfusion. It is now known that TRALI causes hundreds of deaths each year. Experts, however, suspect that the numbers are much higher, as many health-care workers do not recognize the symptoms. Although it is not clear what causes the reaction, according to the magazine New Scientist, the blood that causes it “appears to come primarily from people who have been exposed to a variety of blood groups in the past, such as . . . people who have had multiple transfusions.” One report states that TRALI is now near the top of the list for causes of transfusion-related deaths in the United States and Britain, making it “a bigger problem for blood banks than high-profile diseases like HIV.”

=============================

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.”
=============================

Dr. Gabriel Pedraza recently reminded his colleagues in Chile that “transfusion is a poorly defined practice,” one that makes it “difficult to . . . apply universally accepted guidelines.” No wonder Brian McClelland, director of Edinburgh and Scotland Blood Transfusion Service, asks doctors to “remember that a transfusion is a transplant and therefore not a trivial decision.” He suggests that doctors ponder the question, “If this was myself or my child, would I agree to the transfusion?”

=============================

‘If transfusion medicine is so fraught with dangers,’ you might wonder, ‘why is blood still used so extensively, particularly when there are alternatives?’ One reason is that many doctors are simply reluctant to change treatment methods or are unaware of therapies that are currently used as alternatives to transfusions. According to an article in the journal Transfusion, “physicians make transfusion decisions based upon their past teaching, enculturation, and ‘clinical judgment.’”

==========================================================

Shortly after Christianity was founded some 2,000 years ago, believers were given the divine commandment to “abstain from . . . blood.” The prohibition was based, not on health concerns, but on the sacredness of blood. (Acts 15:19, 20, 29) Some argue that this God-given restriction applies only to the eating of blood, but the word “abstain” speaks for itself. If a doctor told us to abstain from alcohol, we would hardly feel at liberty to inject it into our veins.

The Bible further explains why blood is so sacred. The shed blood of Jesus Christ, representing the human life that he gave in behalf of mankind, is key to the Christian hope. It means forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life. When a Christian abstains from blood, he is in effect expressing his faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him and save his life.—Ephesians 1:7.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are well known for taking these Bible commands to heart. They reject all transfusions involving whole blood or the four primary blood components—red cells, plasma, white cells, and platelets. As for the various fractions derived from those components—and products that contain such fractions—the Bible does not comment on these. Therefore, each Witness makes his own personal decision on such matters. Does this Bible-based stand mean that Witnesses reject medical treatment or view their health and life lightly? Not at all!

Jehovah’s Witnesses, some of whom are physicians and nurses, are known worldwide for their rejection of transfusions involving whole blood or primary blood components. Does their united stand against this practice stem from a man-made doctrine or a belief that a person’s faith can heal medical ailments? That is far from the truth.

Cherishing their life as a gift from God, the Witnesses strive to do their best to live according to the Bible, which they believe is “inspired of God.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Revelation 4:11) That book encourages worshippers of God to avoid practices and habits that harm health or endanger life, such as overeating, smoking or chewing tobacco, abusing alcohol, and using drugs for recreational purposes.—Proverbs 23:20; 2 Corinthians 7:1.

By keeping our body and surroundings clean and getting some physical exercise for health reasons, we are acting in harmony with Bible principles. (Matthew 7:12; 1 Timothy 4:8) When Jehovah’s Witnesses get sick, they demonstrate reasonableness by seeking medical care and accepting the vast majority of available treatment options. (Philippians 4:5) True, they obey the Bible command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood,” insisting on nonblood medical management. (Acts 15:29) And this choice often results in a higher quality of treatment.

hello mhike, hope it answers your question.

questions

i

hi,
just to add link : http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/medical.htm

regards,
ogie

To all ,

It is not about JW.
Its about how deep you understand Gods view in blood.

regards,
ogie