Faith and health (related to JW - blood transfusion & Scientology - antidepressants)

February 18th, 2007, 03:03 AM

Ok, so I sort of take a stand against religion when it makes docterine that refuses health treatments, that can hurt a person.

Jehovah's Witnesses, will NOT have blood transfusions

Scientologists, are against medication that alters your moods and things like that.

Now, if your a consenting 18 year old, we can't force treatment on you (can we?). But when religious parents have children and deny consent to medical treatment due to religion, what are we to do:

1) respect the religion and parent's wishes
2) move past the religion, ignore the parents, and give medical treatment to a minor even if it goes against their religion.

See kids die because of JW parents refusing blood transfusions.

How do we cross that line? Religion and Health.

Thoughts wanted!

February 18th, 2007, 04:46 AM

I think that many of these Jehovah's Witness parents that have the misfortune to have sick kids WANT the state to take over the care of their kids. That way when the children have to have blood tranfusions and the like, as long as the parents do all in their power to prevent that state from taking control the health of the child, they can turn to the church Elders and say "We did everything we could, but the state still took them from us".

Personally though I also believe that anyone who would risk the lives of their children by following the guidelines of a religion, isn't much of a parent......what sort of God would let your children die, when they have the possibility of life with the treatments available today. Shame on those parents and shame on those faiths!

February 18th, 2007, 01:37 PM

Agreed, I watched a little piece on this on the news. And they say, while most JW parents will never admit it, when their child needs a blood transfusion, they are extremely relieved when the state takes over. They try to "fight" it. And the state does it anyway, and they stay worthy in the eyes of the church elders and their children keep alive.

February 18th, 2007, 02:52 PM

Frankly I think the particular case of JW's refusing blood transfusions is pretty silly. The biblical prohibition they cite is specifically against "eating" blood. It's a bit of a stretch to equate transfusion with eating, but even apart from that, that prohibition logically should make them all vegans. There's always a little residual blood left in meat no matter how it's prepared.

I also think that refusing necessary medical care for such a damfool reason is abuse, and the state is fully entitled to step in to protect the children.

February 18th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Yes, I think the state should be able to make a law, saying that for all minor under 18, the state will take over, and ignore religious values, if that religion has a belief that denies a perseon medical care.

Religion should not directly teach the belief of denying health care to themselves.

February 18th, 2007, 05:39 PM

Your a little behind in Jw belief system --lol




Certain medical procedures involving blood are specifically prohibited under the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine. Other procedures are not doctrinally prohibited. For procedures where there is no specific doctrinal prohibition, individuals are to obtain details from medical personnel and then make a personal decision.[14]
Use of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and blood plasma are specifically prohibited under this doctrine. Other fractions derived from blood are not prohibited. However, the Watchtower organization states, "some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable."[15]
The following medical procedures are prohibited:

• Transfusion of allogeneic whole blood, or of its constituents of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma.[16]
• Transfusions of pre-operative donated autologous blood.[17]

The following are examples of medical procedures and products not prohibited:

• Blood donation strictly for purpose of further fractionation of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma for either allogeneic or autologous transfusion.[18][19]
• Transfusions of autologous blood part of a "current therapy".[20]
• Hemodilution, a modified technique in which equipment is arranged in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system.[21]
• Intraoperative blood salvage (autologous) or cell-saver scavenging, a method of picking up blood that has spilled from the circulatory system into an open wound, cleaning and re-infusing it.[22]
• Heart-Lung Machine, a method in which blood is diverted to an artificial heart-lung machine and directed back into the patient.[23]
• Dialysis, wherein blood circulates through a machine, is filtered and cleaned, then returned to the patient.[24]
• Epidural Blood Patch, consisting of a small amount of the patient's blood injected into the membrane surrounding the spinal cord.[25]
• Plasmapheresis, wherein blood is withdrawn and filtered, having the plasma removed and substituted, and returned to the patient.[26]
• Labeling or Tagging, blood is withdrawn, mixed with medicine, and then returned to the patient by transfusion.[27][28]

• Platelet Gel, blood is withdrawn and put into a solution rich in platelets and white blood cells.[29]
• Fractions from red blood cell
  • Hemoglobin, the content of red blood cells. Also see blood substitutes
• Fractions from white blood cells.[30]
  • Interferons
  • Interleukins
• Fractions from platelets[31]
  • Platelet factor 4
• Fractions from blood plasma.[32]
  • Albumin
  • Globulins
  • Clotting factors, including Factor VIII and Factor IX derived from large quantities of stored blood
  • Wound healing factor
• Erythropoietin (EPO).[33]
• PolyHeme, a blood substitute solution of chemically modified human hemoglobin.[34]
• Hemopure, a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin derived from cow's blood.[35]

[edit] Bloodless surgery

Main article: Bloodless surgery
While many Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood on religious grounds, there are non-Witness patients who also choose to avoid blood on non-religious grounds out of concern for AIDS, non-A and non-B hepatitis, and immune system reactions. As a result, bloodless surgery and transfusion alternatives are more commonplace than in the past. However, the term bloodless surgery does not literally mean surgery where blood is not transfused.[36][37] Also, in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusion, bloodless surgery may at times employ techniques and medical applications contrary to their interpretation of Biblical law.[38]
Thousands of physicians around the world are now successfully treating patients with bloodless surgery. Many medical facilities offer bloodless medicine and surgery as a special service for adult and pediatric patients who wish to avoid or limit blood transfusions, or to avoid treatment contrary to the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine. Whatever the reasons for their choice, bloodless surgery has been successfully performed even in such invasive operations as open-heart surgery and total hip replacements.[39]
The Pennsylvania Hospital is one example of a medical institution with a bloodless medicine program.[40] Worldwide, there are 106 medical centers utilizing bloodless medicine programs, with 99 in the United States alone. [41]
Jehovah's Witnesses have produced video documentaries showing the benefits of bloodless surgery techniques featuring interviews with many leading surgeons and prominent physicians in this field of medicine.[42] [43] However, experts on bloodless surgery express that bloodless medical and surgical techniques have limitations, and that the use of various allogeneic blood products and/or pre-operative autologous blood transfusion is the standard of care for some patient presentations.[44][45]
In cases of certain medical emergencies when bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions may seem to be the only available way to save a life. Such situations are obviously very serious. In such instances, Jehovah’s Witnesses may ask their doctors to provide the best alternative care possible under the circumstances, with respect for their personal conviction. If asked, “Would you deliberately allow your child to die if blood would save it?” the Watchtower organization instructs Jehovah’s Witness parents to answer, “I would demand that medical science do everything possible to save my child’s life short of giving it blood.”[46] This has led to the death of members, as stated in the May 22, 1994 issue of Awake, p. 2: "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."

[edit] Hospital Liaison Committees

To facilitate surgery without violating their belief against transfusions, the Governing Body has set up "Hospital Liaison Committees" to enroll doctors and surgeons who will practice bloodless surgery for Witness patients. Currently there are some 1600 such committees in 200 different countries of the world, and over 110,000 doctors and surgeons who have agreed to treat Jehovah's Witnesses without raising issues regarding blood transfusions.
"Hospital Information Services", a department of the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, researches medical literature on the subject and translates medical-journal articles into several different languages. This department provides information to the local Hospital Liaison Committees as well as to doctors and hospitals seeking assistance in treatment options for Witnesses.[47]
The Watch Tower Society has published information about medical matters, blood transfusion in particular, in order to provide an explanation of their view, and also to promote the idea that the practice violates God's laws.
Many Witnesses carry a "Hospital Care Card" or an "Advance Medical Directive/Release card" ("No Blood" card) and, in some countries, a health-care durable power of attorney (DPA) form outlining their wishes in case of emergencies. They also give this information to medical personnel prior to surgeries or other medical procedures that might involve blood, organ transplants, or a decision whether or not to sustain their lives under certain circumstances.
Minor children have an "Identity Card" outlining the wishes of their parents or guardians, and including information on how to contact a parent, relative, or somebody responsible for the child. However, these are powerless under Australian law.[citation needed]

[edit] Acceptance within the Jehovah's Witness community

Before the Watchtower organization developed doctrine concerning blood to the point of prohibiting transfusion, Jehovah’s Witnesses held no shared conviction against blood transfusion or eating blood. A firsthand eyewitness account of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Ravensbrueck concentration camp under Nazi Germany expresses that an overwhelming majority were willing to eat blood sausage despite knowing what the Bible stated on the subject, as well as having alternate food to choose from.[48] The reliability of this testimony is confirmed by another observer, Gertrude Poetzinger, whose husband, Martin Poetzinger, was appointed to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1977.[49][50] In September of 1945, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for publishing Watchtower literature commented on blood transfusion in the Dutch edition of Consolation (now called Awake!). A translation into English reads,

“When we lose our life because we refuse inoculations, that does not bear witness as a justification of Jehovah’s name. God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah’s mercy and love aside.”[51]

Today a majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have adopted the Watchtower organization's stance on blood transfusion. However, from its inception in 1945 to today, the doctrine has not had universal acceptance among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Over this period the Watchtower organization has received repeated requests from individual Jehovah’s Witnesses that the doctrine accept medical transfusion of donor blood.[52][53] This division among Jehovah’s Witnesses was admitted by the Watchtower organization.[54] Jehovah’s Witnesses have conscientiously accepted blood transfusions contrary to Watchtower doctrine.[55] Since 1961 individual Jehovah’s Witnesses have accepted blood transfusions knowing it would make them subject to organized shunning under Watchtower doctrine.[56] In 1982, a peer-reviewed case study of a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses was undertaken by Drs. Larry J. Findley and Paul M. Redstone to evaluate individual belief in respect to blood among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Local elders cooperated with this study by supplying names and addresses of active members and informing these members of the survey. The result showed that 12% were willing to accept transfusion therapy forbidden under Watchtower doctrine.[57] Other peer-reviewed studies examining medical records indicate a similar percentage of Jehovah’s Witnesses willing to accept blood therapies either for themselves or for their children.[58][59] In the August 1998 issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, Donald Ridley, a Jehovah’s Witness and Watchtower staff attorney, argued that carrying an up-to-date Medical Directive card issued by the Watchtower organization indicates that the individual personally agrees with the established religious position of the Watchtower organization.[60] However, the Watchtower organization has issued letters expressing serious concern, citing reports that up to 50% of Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to maintain up-to-date Medical Directive cards, with the result that the individual Witnesses were not protected from routine transfusions; in addition, only a small percentage had filled out the Watchtower-provided Durable Power of Attorney document.[61][62]
The Watchtower organization states, “Nowadays official church dogma may bear scant resemblance to the personal beliefs of those who profess that particular religion.”[63] Commenting on their experience and study of Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusion, Drs Cynthia Gyamfi and Richard Berkowitz wrote, “It is naïve to assume that all people in any religious group share the exact same beliefs, regardless of doctrine. It is well known that Muslims, Jews and Christians have significant individual variations in their beliefs. Why should that not also be true of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”[64] Jehovah’s Witnesses pursue a range of objectives, not just one. These interests include medical, psychological, social, economic, legal, educational and spiritual pursuits. Speaking in behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Donald Ridley states that “Maximizing the good in one of these spheres will come at a cost in some other sphere. Rational people will trade off benefits in different spheres until the aggregate total is maximized.”[65] A significant number of Jehovah's Witnesses agrees completely with Watchtower doctrine regarding blood, and these Jehovah’s Witnesses are typically fervent in their conviction.[66] However, this does not make insignificant the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not fully agree with the Watchtower’s blood doctrine