10 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobAgreed on that go see a doctor they might be able to refer you to a specialist at least that what would happen in the States.
Rob, we live on the 21st century now, medicine and treatment has moved on. If your in pain and it's impacting on your quality of life go see your GP and get a referral to se a physio.
Manny
14 Dec 11
The bottom line to this whole thread is if your life is on the line, don't count on a JW even if you are a JW. Further if a JW family bread winner needed a blood transfusion to survive, he would prefer to decline it even if he left his wife and children destitute. Despicable! It just shows moral depravity!
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by 667joeyeah i am sure those three thousand haemophiliacs and all the countless others of
The bottom line to this whole thread is if your life is on the line, don't count on a JW even if you are a JW. Further if a JW family bread winner needed a blood transfusion to survive, he would prefer to decline it even if he left his wife and children destitute. Despicable! It just shows moral depravity!
hundreds of thousands of people who were given contaminated blood were thinking
exactly the same thing when they died, in fact, you haven't quite stated why you find it
morally acceptable for them to have done so, why is that joe seeing that you are able
to tell others what they are entitled to do with their own bodies. Your the worst kind of
human being, a pathetic little judge of others and self righteous moralist who is content
to pour scorn on others because that's all you are capable of. It takes no talent to
destroy joe, plenty to build.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePlease quit disingenuously pretending like your stance against blood transfusion is based in any way on its medical efficacy, or lack thereof. Your display here is just shameful. Everyone here knows your stance is based on some insane literalist reading of an ancient and medically irrelevant text. If, hypothetically, blood transfusions became completely or even overwhelmingly immune from complication, your death & blood cult would still cling to this stance. So please do not try to act like your stance is based in any way on an objective view of the medical evidence. If it were actually based in any responsible way on the evidence, you would know that blood transfusions are significantly more medically helpful than they are hurtful and continuously improving in this respect.
yeah i am sure those three thousand haemophiliacs and all the countless others of
hundreds of thousands of people who were given contaminated blood were thinking
exactly the same thing when they died, in fact, you haven't quite stated why you find it
morally acceptable for them to have done so, why is that joe seeing that you are able
to tell ...[text shortened]... because that's all you are capable of. It takes no talent to
destroy joe, plenty to build.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo the Bible is irrelevant to you?
Please quit disingenuously pretending like your stance against blood transfusion is based in any way on its medical efficacy, or lack thereof. Your display here is just shameful. Everyone here knows your stance is based on some insane literalist reading of an ancient and medically irrelevant text. If, hypothetically, blood transfusions became completel ...[text shortened]... icantly more medically helpful than they are hurtful and continuously improving in this respect.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt was certainly very bad when people got infections through transfusions, but faced with certain death if you did nothing, or prolonged life with a possible infection, the latter has better odds. Certainly if you were an infection free JW you should be the 1st to donate!
yeah i am sure those three thousand haemophiliacs and all the countless others of
hundreds of thousands of people who were given contaminated blood were thinking
exactly the same thing when they died, in fact, you haven't quite stated why you find it
morally acceptable for them to have done so, why is that joe seeing that you are able
to tell ...[text shortened]... because that's all you are capable of. It takes no talent to
destroy joe, plenty to build.
Also, many more people have been saved by transfusions than have been lost so clearly you are the person who shows the highest state of irrationality!
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75Pretty much, but what does that really have to do with anything? Did you not understand the point of my post? My point is that robbie should quit giving the impression that his stance against blood transfusions is based in any substantive way on considerations regarding their medical efficacy, or lack thereof -- since it is just disingenuous for him to do so. Robbie's bringing up considerations of the medical efficacy of blood transfusions invariably makes him look like an idiot for at least two reasons: (1) it has actually nothing to do with what undergirds his stance against them; and, hypothetically, if blood transfusions became completely immune from complication with new technology or whatever, that fact would hold no sway over him anyway and (2) it just goes to show how he shamelessly cherry-picks his evidential considerations.
So the Bible is irrelevant to you?
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloI just asked you a simple question which you answered. The rest you can talk to Robbie about.
Pretty much, but what does that really have to do with anything? Did you not understand the point of my post? My point is that robbie should quit giving the impression that his stance against blood transfusions is based in any substantive way on considerations regarding their medical efficacy, or lack thereof -- since it is just disingenuous for him to ...[text shortened]... way and (2) it just goes to show how he shamelessly cherry-picks his evidential considerations.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe case he keeps mentioning occured in the 1970's. As tragic as it was, it's not a reflection of the practices in place today.
Pretty much, but what does that really have to do with anything? Did you not understand the point of my post? My point is that robbie should quit giving the impression that his stance against blood transfusions is based in any substantive way on considerations regarding their medical efficacy, or lack thereof -- since it is just disingenuous for him to ...[text shortened]... way and (2) it just goes to show how he shamelessly cherry-picks his evidential considerations.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75I have had many surgeries and never needed a blood transfusion. Doctors
Just asking but do the bloodless surgeries not intrest any of you are do you still prefer the use of blood instead?
do not give blood transfusions unless they believe the patient might die
otherwise. They are trying to save a life at that time.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI do understand fully why a doctor would do a blood tranfusion. I didn't ask for the reasons, I asked if one would do the bloodless option instead.
I have had many surgeries and never needed a blood transfusion. Doctors
do not give blood transfusions unless they believe the patient might die
otherwise. They are trying to save a life at that time.