Jehovah's Witnesses

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
DropkickMurphy said:
Apparently someone drilled a sense of irony or the ability to detect sarcasm out of you at some point.....what a shame. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope, those skills are just fine. Your comment fits neither description, but it's a perfect display of your bigotry. Not to mention ignorance, since, as I said, we don't have communion. if you're going to try for irony, it's best to know the subject a little. Besides, your other remarks betray your true feelings, so pardon me if your begging off with "it's only irony" is a bit, hmmm, lame.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Yes, there are other options to transfusion, but they usually don't work in an emergent situation where what the patient needs is sufficient amounts of RBC's to transport O2.
 
fab4fan said:
Nope, those skills are just fine. Your comment fits neither description, but it's a perfect display of your bigotry. Not to mention ignorance, since, as I said, we don't have communion. if you're going to try for irony, it's best to know the subject a little. Besides, your other remarks betray your true feelings, so pardon me if your begging off with "it's only irony" is a bit, hmmm, lame.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think anyone who wants to let their kid die is an idiot. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes so be it, because yes, I have a bias towards anyone with an apparent lack of concern or a tenuous grasp on reality. If they want to let themselves bleed out, more power to them, but they shouldn't be allowed to force their misguided beliefs upon innocent victims.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
A fair amount of what I read on noblood.org was pretty good. I think that trying to prevent as much blood loss as possible, and maybe using epo and other things for chronic conditions as opposed to repeat transfusions is a fine idea.
However, there is no subsitute for volume after an acute blood loss. Synthetic hemoglobin just isn't as effective. Crystalloid and colloid work from a shock standpoint, but not from an oxygenation standpoint.
What we are arguing is that since these are often life and death issues, not inconvenience issues, often JW families get caught either allowing death (which is fine) or going against what they say they follow.
Your statement:
The parents who rejected the child who received a transfusion were clearly not following the direction of the church. The child is considered blameless. Those parents had other issues that had nothing to do with their faith.
Click to expand...
which is just fine, doesn't mean anything when these people tell us that their religion prevents them from accepting this treatment option. Where are they learning it from? They practice the religion, they don't just follow hearsay.
 
You do realize that banked blood has limited O2 carrying capability, right? In essence, in major trauma, your immediate concern is replacing volume, which can be done with many other substances.

Don't mistake me, there are certainly times when people do need transfusions. Alternatives don't work in every situation, but neither does blood. Sometimes, a JW refusal of a transfusion does result in the pt's death. But there is so much new information out there that dispells previously hard and fast beliefs about when blood should be used. Forgive me for thinking that doctors/doctors-to-be would want to be up to date on the latest in medical care.
 
IbnSina said:
A fair amount of what I read on noblood.org was pretty good. I think that trying to prevent as much blood loss as possible, and maybe using epo and other things for chronic conditions as opposed to repeat transfusions is a fine idea.
However, there is no subsitute for volume after an acute blood loss. Synthetic hemoglobin just isn't as effective. Crystalloid and colloid work from a shock standpoint, but not from an oxygenation standpoint.
What we are arguing is that since these are often life and death issues, not inconvenience issues, often JW families get caught either allowing death (which is fine) or going against what they say they follow.
Your statement:
which is just fine, doesn't mean anything when these people tell us that their religion prevents them from accepting this treatment option. Where are they learning it from? They practice the religion, they don't just follow hearsay.
Click to expand...

People often take things they've learned to extremes. I'm just saying as someone who has been a JW for 43y and a nurse for 21y that never, ever have I read or heard in a sermon that a parent whose child was transfused should reject that child. In fact, rejecting the child would be seen as an abandonment of parental responsibilities, and more than likely result in the parents getting disfellowshipped.
 
IbnSina said:
A fair amount of what I read on noblood.org was pretty good. I think that trying to prevent as much blood loss as possible, and maybe using epo and other things for chronic conditions as opposed to repeat transfusions is a fine idea.
However, there is no subsitute for volume after an acute blood loss. Synthetic hemoglobin just isn't as effective. Crystalloid and colloid work from a shock standpoint, but not from an oxygenation standpoint.
What we are arguing is that since these are often life and death issues, not inconvenience issues, often JW families get caught either allowing death (which is fine) or going against what they say they follow.
Your statement:
which is just fine, doesn't mean anything when these people tell us that their religion prevents them from accepting this treatment option. Where are they learning it from? They practice the religion, they don't just follow hearsay.
Click to expand...

I guess then we (JW) are fortunate that there are many excellent medical facilities with staff who are willing to work with us on alternative treatments, and see us simply as patients, not idiots/annoyances/lunatics/suicidal.
 
I think Appolyon/DoctaWife's point about compassion is perhaps the important one. Like many on this thread I'm not JW but I can understand their belief framework, sure it's a little different than mine but there is a difference between understanding and embracing.

I've had many tranfusion refusal experiences (not all religiously motivated) and one of the pediatric surgeons where I trained would attempt bloodless medicine for JW children with the disclaimer that the parents agreed the decision of when transfusion was medically necessary was his. He was not JW but he saw this as his compromise to save life in a culturally sensitive manner.

Ironically one of my colleagues patients survived largely based on concepts of bloodless medicine. It wasn't my choice (or hers) but it took > 24 hours for red cross to find us compatible blood because of her extensive antibodies. She started out with a hemoglobin of 6.1 and hypotension. She has an EF 15-20% so my colleague had planned to transfuse and minimize crystalloid resuscitation. However, when blood wasn't available she ended up with a central line, on pressors, and receiving plasmanate. She survived with this and prayer (hers and mine) and finally received (after premedication with steroids and benadryl) the most compatible blood redcross could find late yesterday evening.
 
fab4fan said:
People often take things they've learned to extremes. I'm just saying as someone who has been a JW for 43y and a nurse for 21y that never, ever have I read or heard in a sermon that a parent whose child was transfused should reject that child. In fact, rejecting the child would be seen as an abandonment of parental responsibilities, and more than likely result in the parents getting disfellowshipped.
Click to expand...


I agree that the child is held harmless in the case of enforced transfusion and forgiven because it was an unclean world that did the transfusion, not the child or the parents.

But, I have another question. With synthetic Hg such as polyheme: Is this also considered blood product and unacceptable? I know polyheme is in later phases of trials, but was stopped at a few places because of lack of pt consent.
 
I don't often resort to making patients follow my desires. I give them options, and allow them to choose if they want to follow. Sometimes I argue a little more for what I think is better for them, but nothing can make them do what I think they need unless they are willing.
Thus, if a pelvic pain girl doesn't want a pelvic, she isn't getting one. Some religions refuse to allow me as a man to examine a woman.
If a guy doesn't want a prostate exam, he isn't getting one.
And if someone doesn't want blood, I won't make him or her take it.
There is a long line of people who still need it and will take it though. I know this because the Red Cross calls me every 8 weeks asking for more, because they want it for little babies.

I think most of the aggravation for everyone is that this seems like such a simple thing, because our belief systems aren't taught the same way. And they think this simple thing can (and does) save lives, so they get stuck. Just like the oncologists, recommending chemotherapy. Some people just don't want it.
 
student.ie said:
I've never had an athiest patient try to engage me in an athiest discussion. Religious people always feel like they have the right to talk about whatever crap they believe. They talk as if it's true too. If they want to talk mythology, their's a chief mythologist/chaplain available. It's insensitive and annoying of them to bring it up to me.
Click to expand...

And the truth comes out: instead of a larger, more intellectual argument, your rigid, activistic atheism is an individual one - how you are bothered by people that believe in religion (and their effect on you).

I've been proseletyzed to also (but rarely, even though (I've been told) I "exude a loving, caring manner"), but it doesn't drive me to call them "idiots" ("ie", to say a person isn't an idiot, but their beliefs are, is nonsensical), or to get fired up about it.

I look like an Ashkenazi Jew, I am Catholic, I believe in the Christian God, and I haven't been to church in years - but no one knows this. I do my best (and it's a pretty good "best") to project a secular (neither theistic nor atheistic), warm, supportive air.

This is a true story - last weekend, I was in the Detroit Metropolitan airport (DTW). I was sitting there waiting for the plane (had 2 hours) when this guy walks up - who, if I had to guess, was Russian - and, asks me in Russian, "Is someone sitting here?" (he had to translate that for me). He said that I looked familiar, and I said that it's because I look just like my father did, and he was 100% Polish, and he said, "Yeah!" - I said to him that he looked Russian, and he said that he was from Moscow. He was a pretty talkative guy, and, believe it or not, turned to proseletyzing about halfway in. He was saying that he was a pastor (Baptist), and he was an associate of a guy who lived in Charlotte (where he did), who was called "the Russian Billy Graham" (as Billy Graham also lives in Charlotte), and he invited - exhorted - me to come to his church. I politely declined.
 
DogFaceMedic said:
I agree that the child is held harmless in the case of enforced transfusion and forgiven because it was an unclean world that did the transfusion, not the child or the parents.

But, I have another question. With synthetic Hg such as polyheme: Is this also considered blood product and unacceptable? I know polyheme is in later phases of trials, but was stopped at a few places because of lack of pt consent.
Click to expand...

That's a good question. PolyHeme falls into the category of a blood fraction product, which would mean that the decision to accept it would be up to the individual's conscience.

There is a list at www.noblood.org that gives you a rundown of medications/treatments that are considered fractions.
 
You do realize that banked blood has limited O2 carrying capability, right? In essence, in major trauma, your immediate concern is replacing volume, which can be done with many other substances.
Click to expand...

You do realize the O2 carrying capacity of banked blood still exceeds that of crystalloids or blood substitutes, right?

Forgive me for thinking that doctors/doctors-to-be would want to be up to date on the latest in medical care.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for thinking that a practicing nurse would know what she is talking about?

Respectfully yours,

An RT (I know something about O2 carrying capacities) who happens to be a medical technology major with an interest in blood banking and the son of a medical technologist who worked in a trauma center blood bank (and therefore knows something about banked blood)


========================
P.S. Just FWIW and to stop the PM's accusing me of being an atheist or worse, I'm a practicing Christian, but most people don't know that because it's frankly not any of their business. I check my religious beliefs at the door, but I do maintain my belief that stupidity is stupidity regardless of the excuses behind it. I am, however, relieved to know that it is a personal choice, rather than some ironclad dogma that leads these people to make bad choices. I apologize for my comments against all Jehovah's witnesses, but maintain convinced that the ones who refuse transfusion for themselves or their children are working from the point of view of a sigmoidoscope.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
fab4fan said:
As a follow-up, since someone will probably ask, yes, as an RN I have given people transfusions. My conscience allows me to do so; it's not my place to impose my beliefs on others. I don't have negative feelings/judgemental feelings for those who take transfusions. It's not my place to do so.

All the fear about being sued later on for not transfusing is more myth than anything else. While there might have been a few isolated instances of this happening, you will find that the Witnesses will be more appreciative of your efforts to respect their beliefs.

Think about it...these patients are not refusing all medical care. They are refusing one particular treatment. Does that mean they shouldn't get any treatment at all? Are doctors so inept that they cannot try alternatives because the only thing they know how to do is transfuse? We are faced every day with patients who have limitations that may force us to modify the plan of treatment for them. Should they stay home and die too? Since when is there a perfect patient?
Click to expand...
It's one thing if there is a medical limitation on treatment. For example I can't give tPA to someone with a GI bleed. When that guy dies of his MI I will not be liable (or I'll be unlikely to be found liable. It is America after all cha ching). When I don't transfuse someone and the non-JW relative sues me for letting their loved one die it will get messy. Even if I don't lose the suit I lose time and some of my own soul. If you've ever been sued you know what I mean. Every JW is a set up for this kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't decision. It's as I said before. You are unlucky if you are the EP who gets stuck taking care of the critical, bleeding JW.
 
fab4fan said:
That's a good question. PolyHeme falls into the category of a blood fraction product, which would mean that the decision to accept it would be up to the individual's conscience.

There is a list at www.noblood.org that gives you a rundown of medications/treatments that are considered fractions.
Click to expand...

That's consistent with the Jehovah Witness theology. Polyheme is made from blood and not artifical blood as described by some journalists - simply, it is blood cleaned of anitgens. So, should Polyheme make it to a hospital near you, I would let Jehovah Witnesses know that it is from blood. In a field trauma case, when treatment is implied consent and if polyheme where given, then I would think theologically it falls under unintentional and thereby forgiveable by JW community - but, I am guessing a bit.

As to the other discussion that atheists do not proselytize: they most certainly do, but not like religious preachers. Rather, they use cynicism, contempt, and demonstrate unmistakeable intolerance for those who are open about their faith. (agnostics are a different animal.)
 
Apollyon said:
And the truth comes out: instead of a larger, more intellectual argument, your rigid, activistic atheism is an individual one - how you are bothered by people that believe in religion (and their effect on you).
Click to expand...

So it's activist atheism to want to be left alone? I am bothered by people who have no idea what they are talking about trying to teach me about the complete nonsense they believe. That's not activist. The fact that you think my desire for freedom from religion is activist shows how biased people are in favor of religion.

I think it's a shame that people don't have (or block) the critical thinking skills that would lead them to the conclusion that their religious beliefs aren't reasonable. However, they can think what they want as long as no one is hurt. People are hurt though - suicidal JW are just one of countless examples.
 
Rather, they use cynicism, contempt, and demonstrate unmistakeable intolerance for those who are open about their faith.
Click to expand...

And that's different from outspoken preachers? :laugh: Most of them endulge in cynicism, contempt, intolerance, and outright hatred for those who don't agree with them. Both sides are guilty. End of story.
 
student.ie said:
So it's activist atheism to want to be left alone? I am bothered by people who have no idea what they are talking about trying to teach me about the complete nonsense they believe. That's not activist. The fact that you think my desire for freedom from religion is activist shows how biased people are in favor of religion.

I think it's a shame that people don't have (or block) the critical thinking skills that would lead them to the conclusion that their religious beliefs aren't reasonable. However, they can think what they want as long as no one is hurt. People are hurt though & suicidal JW are just one of countless examples.
Click to expand...

Actually, the people that proseletyze DO think they do have an idea what they are talking about.

From what I have observed from what you've written, your rigid atheism may permeate what you do - therefore becoming "active". People can't read me, so they don't (very usually) bother me with religion, so it's not an issue. I would not be surprised if you give off an air of someone who "needs religion" (in the opinion of the missionary), which is why they "bother" you with their "complete nonsense".

Since you
think it's a shame that people don't have (or block) the critical thinking skills that would lead them to the conclusion that their religious beliefs aren't reasonable
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if this colors what you do/how you act, in the face of same. You want people to rationalize that there is no God, heaven, hell, afterlife, limbo, nirvana, or anything else. What you don't get is that these same people say the same thing about folks like you - they want you to rationalize that there IS a God, heaven, hell, or whatever - since it's darn nigh impossible to say that either one exists or doesn't. Actual, true, unbiased critical thinking will NOT lead you to "religious beliefs are unreasonable", but, instead, to the null set, or "no decision". To people that believe that there IS more, or there IS nothing, or whatever, their beliefs - ie (again!) - what they believe - ARE 'reasonable'.

And the "reasonable man" standard is what is applied when there is a question of levels of responsibility and culpability.

And, anyways, even though your beliefs are yours, legal, and morally acceptable, if you were ever in court for a JW who died, and you testified on your own behalf, you WOULD be asked if you believed in God by plaintiff's attorney. If you said "no", you would poison the jury against you. Is it right? No. Is it just? No. Is it fair? Fair is the weather. But that's the way it is, and will most likely stay for the future.
 
Wow,

I have to admit, it is scary to think that many of you may be physicians some day. First of all, I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness until I was 18... so while all of your "I knew a friend who had a neighbor who was a JW" stories are nice and all... here's the straight dope.

Witnesses have very strong notions on the sanctity of blood, which includes anything that involves blood.... like self-mutilation, undercooked meat, and blood transfusions. As far as transfusions go, they believe blood is sacred and should not be shared, even if a life is in danger. As whack as you may feel about this, you WILL encounter it as a physician... along with millions of other things that you will not agree with. What will make you an excellent physician is how you are able to deal with people and their boundaries... not by how far you can push someone outside thier beliefs.

I can speak from experience, because my mother had several transfusions to save her life (pressured by physicians)... and she never returned to the congregation. This was partially because she did not feel accepted... and partially because she felt that she did something contrary to her own beliefs. These transfusions changed her life, because all of the sudden she felt alienated from the only community that she knew. Also, I think she has felt that she "betrayed" herself, god, and the religion for years after that.

MANY other religions have crazy things too... like not notifying elderly parents of terminal diseases, not adminstering antibiotics to children, or not allowing surgery of any kind. You should get used to this now... and respect other people's priorities. Even though YOUR priority might be to save a life... other people may (and do) feel differently.

By the way, JWs dont believe in heaven or hell... and there is no communion... did you flunk Religions 101? And, JW's are officially an "established sect"... not a cult
 
DropkickMurphy said:
And that's different from outspoken preachers? :laugh: Most of them endulge in cynicism, contempt, intolerance, and outright hatred for those who don't agree with them. Both sides are guilty. End of story.
Click to expand...

Not quite right, Grasshopper.
Most outspoken preachers are in fact very tolerant and loving people, which is why the best humanists in the world are religiously motivated - albeit every religious and political belief in history has been used by intolerant people to justify insane objectives.

Most Christian and Jewish preachers are not intolerant and hateful. To say that they are mostly intolerant and cynical is in fact a myth propagated by a secularist and intolerant intelligentsia that dominates academia. Slavery was ended by a spiritualist revival in the late 18th century, not the Enlightenment. The Righteous Gentiles were not atheists and rarely agnostics; they were Christian. It is unfortunate that the evils done in the name of religion (Torquemada) by seom have been used by athieists to attack all faith. But individual rights are founded in freedom of consciousness, which is based in the human spirit, not secularist rationality. But, I digress...

Religious tolerance is very important for those wishing to succeed as physicians and be accepted to Med School, even when we disagree with the faith-based decisions. I will transfuse a child, and withhold treament for a competent adult if that is their decision.
 
What will make you an excellent physician is how you are able to deal with people and their boundaries...
Click to expand...

Exactly....I will still do everything in my power to save the life of a person I disagree with. That's what will make me a good physician, without regard to the fact that I think some of my patients are utter total and complete *****s.
 
Most outspoken preachers are in fact very tolerant and loving people
Click to expand...

As someone who originally planned on being a minister, I can tell you for a fact that many of the people who would have been my colleagues are only tolerant until you tell them you don't agree or don't want to hear it (just like anyone else, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Satanist, atheist, agnostic). Granted, I know one man who is a Pentecostal minister of all things who is one of the best people I know, despite his religious convictions. People who are good people tend to be that way regardless of their religion, not because of it.

Your judgement is clouded based upon where you stand on this issue, and since I have been on both sides of the argument (would be minister ----> atheist -----> agnostic -----> laid back Episcopalian) I try to balance out all my experiences, not just those that support my current religious beliefs.
 
angellina444 said:
MANY other religions have crazy things too... like not notifying elderly parents of terminal diseases, not adminstering antibiotics to children, or not allowing surgery of any kind. You should get used to this now... and respect other people's priorities. Even though YOUR priority might be to save a life... other people may (and do) feel differently.

By the way, JWs dont believe in heaven or hell... and there is no communion... did you flunk Religions 101? And, JW's are officially an "established sect"... not a cult
Click to expand...

A few points (and this from someone who WHOLLY supports the right of an adult JW to refuse a transfusion)
-I don't think kids can be denied life-saving antibiotics, just as children of JW can not be denied life-saving transfusions.
-We have an obligation to notify a patient of his/her diagnosis (elderly or not) IF he/she wants to know. Thus, even if their religion prohibits them we have to ask, "Do you want to know the diagnosis? Is there someone you'd like us to tell." They can refuse to know on the basis of their religion, but we must offer.

Honestly I've been to all manner of religious schools and thus taken "Religions 101" multiple times. We were not taught about Jehovah's Witnesses in any of them, so I wouldn't assume that a bunch of people who have proven themselves to be excellent students such as the people on this board simply overlooked a particular course in which they were taught about religion. Perhaps you could take a more educational tone in the future.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
You do realize the O2 carrying capacity of banked blood still exceeds that of crystalloids or blood substitutes, right?



Forgive me for thinking that a practicing nurse would know what she is talking about?

Respectfully yours,

An RT (I know something about O2 carrying capacities) who happens to be a medical technology major with an interest in blood banking and the son of a medical technologist who worked in a trauma center blood bank (and therefore knows something about banked blood)


========================
P.S. Just FWIW and to stop the PM's accusing me of being an atheist or worse, I'm a practicing Christian, but most people don't know that because it's frankly not any of their business. I check my religious beliefs at the door, but I do maintain my belief that stupidity is stupidity regardless of the excuses behind it. I am, however, relieved to know that it is a personal choice, rather than some ironclad dogma that leads these people to make bad choices. I apologize for my comments against all Jehovah's witnesses, but maintain convinced that the ones who refuse transfusion for themselves or their children are working from the point of view of a sigmoidoscope.
Click to expand...

Banked blood has limited O2 carrying ability for anywhere from 6-24h after transfusion. And the older the blood is, the less able it is to carry O2, period. Thus, one of the many reasons researchers have been trying to find a blood substitute that is more effective in delivering O2.

Find where I said a crystalloid carries O2. I didn't. I said that in a trauma situation one of the main concerns is volume depletion, which can be replaced with agents other than blood.

Like I said, I'm just glad there are world-class physicians here who are willing to work with pts. who refuse transfusions (and have had a great deal of success, for that matter). The whole field of blood conservation has benefitted many patients, not just JWs. If you want to argue and rail against all of the research that is out there that shows the benefits of minimizing transfusions, that's your prerogative.

If you want to bash me and call me stupid for what I believe, that's fine too.

To those of you who understand the concept of treating the whole patient, not just a disease/injury, keep up the good work. You're definitely needed.
 
I have to admit a small bit of enjoyment getting a rise out of dropkick.
 
fab4fan said:
Banked blood has limited O2 carrying ability for anywhere from 6-24h after transfusion. And the older the blood is, the less able it is to carry O2, period. Thus, one of the many reasons researchers have been trying to find a blood substitute that is more effective in delivering O2.

Find where I said a crystalloid carries O2. I didn't. I said that in a trauma situation one of the main concerns is volume depletion, which can be replaced with agents other than blood.

Like I said, I'm just glad there are world-class physicians here who are willing to work with pts. who refuse transfusions (and have had a great deal of success, for that matter). The whole field of blood conservation has benefitted many patients, not just JWs. If you want to argue and rail against all of the research that is out there that shows the benefits of minimizing transfusions, that's your prerogative.

If you want to bash me and call me stupid for what I believe, that's fine too.

To those of you who understand the concept of treating the whole patient, not just a disease/injury, keep up the good work. You're definitely needed.
Click to expand...
Did I say I wasn't willing to work with these patients? No, in fact I stated the exact opposite. I just also said I think you all have your heads up your asses. There's a slight difference, just like the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

And yes, I know crystalloid doesn't transport O2. Once again a swing and a miss when it comes to irony. It's a little hard to "treat the whole patient" when they have exsanguinated and the crystalloid is just adding to the problem by dilution. Also, riddle me this Joker, what happens when you give sufficient volumes of fluid to resuscitate an actively bleeding or even a severely volume-depleted, but no longer bleeding patient?
 
DogFaceMedic said:
I have to admit a small bit of enjoyment getting a rise out of dropkick.
Click to expand...
You'll have to try harder then.....this isn't getting a rise out of me. I'm just stating my opinion and the lack of other cues make it seem like I'm riled up. :laugh:
 
Apollyon said:
Actually, the people that proseletyze DO think they do have an idea what they are talking about.

From what I have observed from what you've written, your rigid atheism may permeate what you do - therefore becoming "active". People can't read me, so they don't (very usually) bother me with religion, so it's not an issue. I would not be surprised if you give off an air of someone who "needs religion" (in the opinion of the missionary), which is why they "bother" you with their "complete nonsense".

To people that believe that there IS more, or there IS nothing, or whatever, their beliefs - ie (again!) - what they believe - ARE 'reasonable'.

And, anyways, even though your beliefs are yours, legal, and morally acceptable, if you were ever in court for a JW who died, and you testified on your own behalf, you WOULD be asked if you believed in God by plaintiff's attorney. If you said "no", you would poison the jury against you. Is it right? No. Is it just? No. Is it fair? Fair is the weather. But that's the way it is, and will most likely stay for the future.
Click to expand...

Sure they think they know what they're talking about. They know it in their heart like in junior-high when every teenage girl knew Joe from the New Kids on the Block was going to fall in love with her some day. Knowing something in your heart in hardly reliable.

I'm not athiest. I'm agnostic. I wrote atheism above for continuity with earlier posts. Atheism is no more rational than religion... well a little more since it lacks specific, falsifiable beliefs, but not much better.

Folie à deux, folie à trois, or folie à plusieurs, they're all delusional and are incompetent to make decisions if their delusion affects the decision. Not that I think JW shouldn't be able to commit suicide (if they don't have kids), but they aren't really competent. -except that religion is specifically excluded for the definition of delusion. How silly are your beliefs when you have to define delusion to say 'p.s.- religion doesn't count no matter how ridiculous the belief'.

People can't just make their beliefs reasonable by thinking they are so. That's the opposite of reason.

As far as court and poisoning the jury. You're absolutely right. Religious people, even those viewed as nutty like JW and Mormons can be open about their beliefs and no one will discriminate against them. Agnostics & athiests are forced to hide their lack of brainwashing to avoid hatred and discrimination.
 
fab4fan said:
Banked blood has limited O2 carrying ability for anywhere from 6-24h after transfusion. And the older the blood is, the less able it is to carry O2, period. Thus, one of the many reasons researchers have been trying to find a blood substitute that is more effective in delivering O2.

Find where I said a crystalloid carries O2. I didn't. I said that in a trauma situation one of the main concerns is volume depletion, which can be replaced with agents other than blood.

Like I said, I'm just glad there are world-class physicians here who are willing to work with pts. who refuse transfusions (and have had a great deal of success, for that matter). The whole field of blood conservation has benefitted many patients, not just JWs. If you want to argue and rail against all of the research that is out there that shows the benefits of minimizing transfusions, that's your prerogative.

If you want to bash me and call me stupid for what I believe, that's fine too.

To those of you who understand the concept of treating the whole patient, not just a disease/injury, keep up the good work. You're definitely needed.
Click to expand...

Synthetic blood and minimizing blood loss are both great and I'm glad if it helps JWs and everyone else. Your discussion of it is a change of subject and not a response to the ethical question though. Maybe one day transfusions will be unnecessary but you still hold the unethical view that you'd rather watch your kids die than give them blood.
-and you'd rather die and leave your kids orphans than receive blood yourself. all for a fairytale.
 
student.ie said:
Synthetic blood and minimizing blood loss are both great and I'm glad if it helps JWs and everyone else. Your discussion of it is a change of subject and not a response to the ethical question though. Maybe one day transfusions will be unnecessary but you still hold the unethical view that you'd rather watch your kids die than give them blood.
-and you'd rather die and leave your kids orphans than receive blood yourself. all for a fairytale.
Click to expand...

Well, let's leave my kids out of the subject since I haven't any. As for myself, I would want my care given by a competent practitioner who understands that blood is not a panacea. I would want a doctor who is up on the latest treatment options. And if I were unfortunate enough to not be able to avail myself of one of those docs, I would appreciate having a doc who was able to respect my beliefs, even if he/she disagreed.

I believe it's already been addressed that JW don't just simply sit back and die/watch their children die. There are other treatment options that are acceptable. Try researching what's offered at bloodless medicine centers (like the one at HUP) and see what's out there.

Done with this; since the loudest critics aren't remotely familiar with all of the new treatments and surgical techniques available in bloodless care, all this really is is a thread to bash a religion.
 
fab4fan said:
Well, let's leave my kids out of the subject since I haven't any. As for myself, I would want my care given by a competent practitioner who understands that blood is not a panacea. I would want a doctor who is up on the latest treatment options. And if I were unfortunate enough to not be able to avail myself of one of those docs, I would appreciate having a doc who was able to respect my beliefs, even if he/she disagreed.

I believe it's already been addressed that JW don't just simply sit back and die/watch their children die. There are other treatment options that are acceptable. Try researching what's offered at bloodless medicine centers (like the one at HUP) and see what's out there.

Done with this; since the loudest critics aren't remotely familiar with all of the new treatments and surgical techniques available in bloodless care, all this really is is a thread to bash a religion.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah...
Given choice a) blood or b) death. You choose death. You can change the subject saying that that's not always the choice, but sometimes it is. When you have to choose, you make the wrong choice. That's the bottom line and you can't deny it.
 
all this really is is a thread to bash a religion.
Click to expand...

No, as you said, we're bashing the personal choices made by the members of that religion since it's a 'personal choice'. As student.ie said (and while I think he/she is a bit too hardcore when it comes to religion), if the "bloodless medicine" options fail, and the choice is "take the blood or die", I still reserve the right to shake my head in amazement at someone being so mindless.

What is HUP by the way? I'm making an effort to see things from your point of view (and be up to speed on the latest options as you put it) so work with me here.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
You do realize the O2 carrying capacity of banked blood still exceeds that of crystalloids or blood substitutes, right?

Forgive me for thinking that a practicing nurse would know what she is talking about?

Respectfully yours,

An RT (I know something about O2 carrying capacities) who happens to be a medical technology major with an interest in blood banking and the son of a medical technologist who worked in a trauma center blood bank (and therefore knows something about banked blood)
Click to expand...


Well, seeing as how you're a pre-med (yeah yeah yeah, and a medic, and an RT, and an echocardiographer, and a magician, and an astronaut, and a race-car driver) I'm sure there will be alot of advances in blood substitutes in the 5 or 6 years that will pass before you can even think about ordering blood. SNAP!

Seriously, it's pretty funny to watch an RT try to pull rank on nurses, doctors, and student doctors. I doubt you'll be as deferential to ancillary staff when you have the big letters after your name.

Don't get mad Dropkick, it's just sarcasm after all!
 
AmoryBlaine said:
Well, seeing as how you're a pre-med (yeah yeah yeah, and a medic, and an RT, and an echocardiographer, and a magician, and an astronaut, and a race-car driver) I'm sure there will be alot of advances in blood substitutes in the 5 or 6 years that will pass before you can even think about ordering blood. SNAP!

Seriously, it's pretty funny to watch an RT try to pull rank on nurses, doctors, and student doctors. I doubt you'll be as deferential to ancillary staff when you have the big letters after your name.

Don't get mad Dropkick, it's just sarcasm after all!
Click to expand...
Let's see whose ego is getting in the way now. :rolleyes:
 
AmoryBlaine said:
Well, seeing as how you're a pre-med (yeah yeah yeah, and a medic, and an RT, and an echocardiographer, and a magician, and an astronaut, and a race-car driver) I'm sure there will be alot of advances in blood substitutes in the 5 or 6 years that will pass before you can even think about ordering blood. SNAP!

Seriously, it's pretty funny to watch an RT try to pull rank on nurses, doctors, and student doctors. I doubt you'll be as deferential to ancillary staff when you have the big letters after your name.

Don't get mad Dropkick, it's just sarcasm after all!
Click to expand...

OUCH!
 
Hey everybody!

Fatty McFattypants.

Just a suggestion.
 
Although I have to admit that I haven't seen this much cat fighting since one cheerleader stole another one's man in high school.
 
angellina444 said:
like I said, scary
Click to expand...

What is scary about everyone here saying they would allow adult JWs to refuse blood transmissions? Should they NOT be tolerating their religious choices? :confused:

Last time I checked, it's all right for people to hold their own beliefs on the intelligence of patient choices, as long as they act according to the patient's wishes. I think that makes everyone here much better clinicians when they can put their own personal feelings aside and respect someone's religious beliefs, no matter how delusional those beliefs may be.
 
angellina444 said:
Wow,


I can speak from experience, because my mother had several transfusions to save her life (pressured by physicians)... and she never returned to the congregation. This was partially because she did not feel accepted... and partially because she felt that she did something contrary to her own beliefs. These transfusions changed her life, because all of the sudden she felt alienated from the only community that she knew. Also, I think she has felt that she "betrayed" herself, god, and the religion for years after that.
Click to expand...

I think that this thread is probably spent but it has been an interesting conversation. I haven't really formed my own opinion yet but I'd like to at least point out to angellina444 that despite your mother's difficulty with her religion she was able to be around to raise you and influence who you became. I'm not so sure that she would trade watching you grow up for feeling less like she "betrayed" her community.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
As someone who originally planned on being a minister, I can tell you for a fact that many of the people who would have been my colleagues are only tolerant until you tell them you don't agree or don't want to hear it (just like anyone else, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Satanist, atheist, agnostic). Granted, I know one man who is a Pentecostal minister of all things who is one of the best people I know, despite his religious convictions. People who are good people tend to be that way regardless of their religion, not because of it.

Your judgement is clouded based upon where you stand on this issue, and since I have been on both sides of the argument (would be minister ----> atheist -----> agnostic -----> laid back Episcopalian) I try to balance out all my experiences, not just those that support my current religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Erm, I can't speak for other religions, but I was raised Jewish. Now, my beliefs are far from even the reform believe, and I have never had a problem with any rabbi. And, I have been into my share of new temples. I'm always upfront about my beliefs, and even the more orthodox Jews have been accepting of me into their services.

This has nothing to do with JWs refusing blood, I know. So, for the sake of the thread, I'll just say that while I think it's ridiculous, I respect the right to follow your beliefs and would not go any further than making sure the consequences are clear. The ninja doctor pretty much said it all up there:

IbnSina said:
I don't often resort to making patients follow my desires. I give them options, and allow them to choose if they want to follow. Sometimes I argue a little more for what I think is better for them, but nothing can make them do what I think they need unless they are willing.
Thus, if a pelvic pain girl doesn't want a pelvic, she isn't getting one. Some religions refuse to allow me as a man to examine a woman.
If a guy doesn't want a prostate exam, he isn't getting one.
And if someone doesn't want blood, I won't make him or her take it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

pkwraith
Croup fatality malpratice case aka the scourge of bad EM expert witnesses
2 3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
9K
PianoMedic
PianoMedic
Birdstrike
Yale M.D. says all doctors should be forced to wear BODYCAMS because of racist “medial violence” against patients she personally witnessed by ED staff
2 3
Replies
135
Views
9K
dozitgetchahi
D
sylvanthus
Medical Consulting/Expert Witness
Replies
39
Views
5K
deuist
deuist
D
Question about expert witnesses
Replies
13
Views
2K
suckstobeme
S
L
subpoena and expert witness
Replies
14
Views
3K
southerndoc
southerndoc
Top