first of all, learn how to spell. you've discredited your stupid argument even more. second, the FDA already regulates blood donation and treats blood as a drug, so inform yourself before opening your mouth (or making a post). blood has been regulated by the FDA for decades and 4.5 million patients a year have their lives saved, prolonged or enhanced due to blood transfusions, including patients with chronic blood illnesses that require multiple and frequent transfusions. "bloodless" surgeries is just an industry, like any other, and they are trying to make their point to sell services to hospitals. take it with a grain of salt.

DCist...Great Post...but unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears. Idiots like Geo in Cancun are the reason millions haven't been given there FDA APPROVED vaccinations. They believe any source they can find over the millions of doctors who disagree with their point of view.

First of all, let me say that blood transfusions saved my life 3 years ago when my hemoglobin fell to 7.2 (half of the 'normal' range). Most people don't survive that kind of drop. I was lucky to have the procedure, without any side effects.

Secondly, I am amazed at the number of collapsed comments on this board. Comments are to be collapsed when they are inflammatory, of no value, or advertising. Censorship of ideas that conflict with your own are not a reason to shut a comment thread down.

This is a platform for public discussion. How will you ever learn what others are thinking if you don't listen? Next, we'll have book burnings.

Please stop it.

Physicist-retired: 4 years ago, my hemoglobin also dropped by half. I did NOT receive a blood transfusion. I told my doctor I preferred not to get a transfusion if we could help it. This was after giving birth to my child. I was up and walking within 12 hours. My hemoglobin slowly returned to a more normal rate over the course of a few weeks. The only noticeable effect was that I was cold more often and it was hard to stay warm. I do think we are giving transfusions when they are not necessarily needed. A better approach might be watchful waiting in this case. Had my hemoglobin dropped much more or had I not been able to function even remotely normally, then a transfusion might have been in order.

Mom,

I was completely ambulatory (even still riding my bike 10 - 15 miles per day) when my doctor discovered my extremely low levels. It was obvious that my hemoglobin had been dropping slowly over a period of less than 12 months (since my previous physical). They expected to find a serious cancer as the cause of this drop.

As no cancer was found during my first 2 days in the hospital, and the doctors were completely unsure of what was causing the drop, it was decided that a transfusion was wise. I agreed. No one knew how low it would go, or why.

Clearly, your situation was different - the cause was known, and the bleeding had (probably) been stemmed. You don't mention what level your hemoglobin reached, so I can't comment on that.

But it does appear that our situations were a bit different. Also, our ages are, and the ability of my body to create new blood cells is probably much lower than yours if you were bearing children 4 years ago.

My doctors were very cautious about the transfusions. Perhaps others aren't, and give blood more than they should. From my personal experience, I can only say that one doctor and two nurses were in the room while I was being transfused, in order to be prepared to counteract any negative reactions I might have.

Watchful waiting might not have been the best approach for me.

Hi, I just wanted to say that when I delivered my oldest son 35 years ago my blood count dropped to under 4. I did not accept a blood tranfusion, it took 10 days to get up to 8 and be allowed to go home. One of my friends had a simular experience with the birth of her 4th child. Another friend, due to a logging accident lost his leg, his blood count went down to 3 something, he also survived. I also have a friend who was fully functioning with a blood count of 8 something, due to being unaware of being anemic. So, with all due respect, I suspect that you would have survived even w/o a blood tranfusion. However, I do totally respect that everyone has the right to decide what is best for themselves.

mari,

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

Few patients can survive a hemoglobin level of less than 5 g per deciliter without transfusion.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200204043461420

Apparently you, and the people you know, were extremely lucky - you certainly beat all the odds. I think it is an amazing coincidence. You and your friends are unusually fortunate, indeed.

to the retired physicist,

If you read the article it gave an account of someone that survived very low hemoglobin. Then it makes the statement you quoted above without any data to support it. As a scientist, you should be more critical of statements not backed by hard data.

I have personally witnessed two operations where JW women had surgeries where their hemoglobin levels were below 5. One went as low as 3.8 and she survived fine. She was out of the hospital in a week. When the doctor was asked about the surgery, he said her total blood loss was about a tablespoon. So obviously a skilled surgeon using techniques developed because of JW's can perform serious operations with minimal blood loss.

Also, if you do research you will find that the hemoglobin levels used as a standard were set decades ago. Medicine and alternative treatments have progressed much since then.

I do have to ask if you would still feel the same if you had contracted a serious complication because of the transfusion. The article states that there are tens of thousand each year that have these complications. Would you still feel the same if you had contracted Hep. C?

My brother has been walking around with a hg level below 7 for the better part of a year now. He has dropped to a 3 more than once. Yes he has had transfusions, but to state that if you drop below 7 is almost certain death is a bit on the dramatic side.

Shellie,

to state that if you drop below 7 is almost certain death

My quote, from the New England Journal Of Medicine, was

Few patients can survive a hemoglobin level of less than 5 g per deciliter without transfusion.

I didn't say 7. And I didn't say anything about 7 being certain death, so no drama there.

As for your brother, it sounds like he has a chronic condition. I hope he's okay.

Agent Tom,

Then it makes the statement you quoted above without any data to support it. As a scientist, you should be more critical of statements not backed by hard data.

That's why I provided the link to the source of the quote I used. The New England Journal Of Medicine backs it's statements up with much data. As I scientist, I find their studies and analysis to be rather compelling.

As for:

Would you still feel the same if you had contracted Hep. C?

The CDC has this information about that:

What is the risk of acquiring HCV infection from transfused blood or blood products in the United States?

Now that more advanced screening tests for HCV are used in blood banks, the risk is considered to be less than 1 chance per 2 million units transfused. Before 1992, when blood screening for HCV became available, blood transfusion was a leading means of HCV transmission.

http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HCV/HCVfaq.htm#section2

If you compare 2,000,000 transfusions to 2,000,000 miles of driving, you find this::

After 2,000,000 miles (of driving a car) the 241 drivers of the vehicles were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes, and 8,295 critical incidents.

From a study done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI). Here's the link:

http://www.vtti.vt.edu/PDF/100-Car_Fact-Sheet.pdf

In other words, driving to the hospital was probably more dangerous than getting hep c from the transfusion. No - hep c wasn't a major concern for me.

Retired Physicist,

You really did not answer the question. Would you feel the same if you had contracted Hep C or some other disease that would have ruined your health and required you to take meds for the rest of your life, which would be substantially shortened by the disease?

Good comment. Please go to the website above and see how the world is going to end in 1914, or 1925, or 1975, or some indeterminate time in the near future. Please do it before Jehovah sends birds to poke out your eyeballs, unless you WANT to look like something out of The Birds.

tai0316

If you are a Jehovah's Witness, why not just come out and say it? There's no need to hide behind words such as "they" and "their" when you really mean to say "we" and "our." That is, unless you feel like your being a Jehovah's Witnesses destroys your credibility. It bothers me how many Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be so staunch in their religion yet are scared to admit what they are.

@Johnny367 how can somebody be staunch in their belief but not admit? By being staunch they're saying they are Jehovah's Witnesses. And this isn't some article praising them, it's simply stating facts that been around for a decade.

dennis-1629330

I think you missed my point (though I don't know how). My point IS that it is contradictory for a person to claim to be a staunch believer while trying to conceal their belief. In my mind, someone true to their beliefs won't disguise what they believe.

I think tai0316 is an excellent example. Though I could be wrong in assuming that he is Jehovah's Witness, his post had a very "proselyting" feeling to it. Yet at the same time he used phrases like "they come to your door" and "their official website."

It bothers me how many Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be so staunch in their religion yet are scared to admit what they are.

Perhaps it is because Tai0316 (if they are, in fact, a Witness since Tai0316 never claimed to be a staunch believer of anything) has encountered individuals in the past who lash out mindlessly at them as soon as they hear the name "Jehovah's Witness"--missing Tai0316's message entirely in the process of venting a knee-jerk response. This being the case--and judging from your comments--perhaps you're the answer to your own question. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I can confirm that all of the pertinent points in Tai0316's post are accurate. Apparently my making this resolute statement will now allow you to sleep tonight. You're welcome.

It seems obvious to me that bleeding is not a good thing. If a person loses too much blood that is always bad. It certainly took a long time for researchers to discover the AIDS virus.

It's too bad that this discussion has been degraded by criticism of religious beliefs. (Romans Chapter 2 verse 1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

Too many people are punished because of religious beliefs, when virtually ever religion has its version of the golden rule.

sorry but the medical community disagrees with you.

Blood returning devices are better than blood transfusions.

Blood transfusions are better than bleeding out.

Rationality, or at least a coherent straight forward non-gerrymandering faith is better than Jehovah's Witnesses.

Sorry, the intellectual community disagrees with you.

Oh, and pray for my soul if ye don't mind :)

Just FYI, Jehovah's Witnesses never attribute unfortunate circumstances to "God's Will". The bible clearly teaches that it was never Jehovah's will for people to get sick, die, etc. There's a bigger issue at hand, I would try to explain it, but it really takes sitting down and studying the bible to understand why bad things happen. ANY BIBLE

And to say that they prefer their kids to die, is so sad and misguided. Someone who really loves their child would not prefer that. Just like Jehovah doesn't prefer us to die. That's why he'll change it soon.

As for traces of blood being in meat, can you not cook meat until the juices run clear? Then it's okay to eat and you're not consuming animal blood.

But advocates like Hannon say it can be perfectly safe to hold off on transfusions in otherwise healthy people until their levels fall much lower. That, said Triulzi, is where some doctors draw the line.

Don't let the blood kill you. Hold off. That's what the doctor's say.

Republican$ I have a question for you. Did you even read the article? It clearly states what JW's have said for years. That is, there are alternatives that are better medicine. The article stated that 11,000 patients have serious medical problems as a result of transfusions and 40 died. I suspect many of those were young children.

So, how many JW's died from refusing transfusions? My guess is less than 5 per year. And in many of these cases it is because the hospital refuses to treat the patient because they won't accept blood.

And the 11,000 serious medical problems probably include things like AIDS or hepatitis. These and other diseases end up being a medical issue for the rest of the life of the person. By not accepting blood, there are no serious medical problems that happen as a result.

And as far as your comment about JW's being hypocrites, again you are wrong. The scriptures say avoid blood. They also say avoid drunkenness. So how much is too much alcohol? In this JW's say the 4 major components should be disposed of according to the scriptures. If there are remaining cells in the meat, God knows that a person tried and was respectful of His command. The same can be said for alcohol. How much is too much? Obviously it varies but there is a point at which even governments say a person is drunk.

If you want to roll the dice, be my guest. I choose not to.

It's really too bad that you are too blinded by your prejudice to get the point of the article. Instead of actually reading it, you took it as an opportunity to spew your ignorant hate speech. It is also a shame that you have drawn your own conclusions about Jehovah's Witnesses rather than finding out what they really believe. I guess you wish to remain ignorant.

Our View of Medical Care
Blood Transfusions

Why don’t you accept blood transfusions?

We follow the Bible command, found at Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25, and elsewhere, that Christians must “abstain from . . . blood.” Jehovah’s Witnesses request the use of nonblood medical alternatives, which are widely accepted and used by the medical community.

Jehovah’s Witnesses request nonblood alternatives, which are widely used and accepted by the medical community. We do this because of the Bible’s command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” (Acts 15:29; see also Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:1, 2, 10-12; Deuteronomy 12:23-25.) While we refuse blood for religious rather than medical reasons, many have acknowledged that this refusal has helped the Witnesses to avoid contracting many costly and fatal diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis.

Since the Bible makes no clear statement about the use of minor blood fractions or the immediate reinfusion of a patient’s own blood during surgery, a medical process known as blood salvaging, the use of such treatments is a matter of personal choice. We accept reliable nonblood medical alternatives, which are increasingly recognized in the medical field.

The medicines and surgical techniques used in place of blood are so effective that doctors now offer them to patients who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses. Professor of Law Charles H. Baron wrote that “not only Jehovah’s Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses’ Hospital Liaison Committees. Patients in general enjoy greater autonomy over a whole range of health care decisions because of the work done by the Witnesses as part of an overall patients’ rights movement. And the causes of freedom in general and religious freedom in particular have been advanced by the Witnesses’ dedicated resistance to efforts to force them to take action inconsistent with their religious beliefs.”

Jehovah wants everyone to have everlasting life. 2Peter 3:9 This is why he sends his people to you. He loves you. Would anyone really want their child to die?

Nothing is made up. The prohibition on blood is biblical. JW's don't abstain because of health benefits which are numerous, but because the creator, the giver of life, says the life is in the blood and should not be used. (Leviticus 17:13, 14 & Acts 15:28, 29)

God's ways are superior to man's ways.

it's pathetic that people hate on others for ones faith or religion.

Exactly. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses never say anything bad about other religions.

Douglas

As you have stated, there is a reason for all of God's commandments. The reasons may not be explained in the Bible but sure we are seeing the consequences now; (i.e. fornication brings about many many diseases upon humans)

PS. My grandma died because of a blood transfusion. The blood wasnt properly tested and got cirrhosis of the liver. It happened many years ago but it comes to show u that transfusions could be also a death sentence. There are microorganisms in our body, that our body can live with but could be deadly if another person is exposed to them.

Tommy, take notes:

Q:"Republican$ I have a question for you. Did you even read the article?"

A: Yes,if there are better alternatives to a blood transfusion I recommend utilizing the better alternative. If one declines a blood transfusion because they are scared of what their daddy's daddy's daddy's (ad infinitum / nauseum) told them to be scared of I guess I call that natural selection.

Statement: "By not accepting blood, there are no serious medical problems that happen as a result..."

Rebuttal: Except death, and I think we are over populated so please refuse. But understand, I'm not proposing to not to use blood saving/returning devices or to not perform autologous blood donations.

Statement: "If there are remaining cells in the meat, God knows that a person tried and was respectful of His command."

Rebuttal: I'm saying it is utter hubris, self centered delusion and hypocrisy to think that you chowing on meat is cool with big J but you trying to survive a traumatic blood loss is not. Especially when you base your decisions on "Well god knows I tried, now if you'll excuse me I'm going back to the breakfast bar for somes of that bacon." I think that if you have to justify your breakfast, lunch and dinner with "Jehovah's a pretty understanding guy" that you have no business making major decisions based on Big J's opinions. Especially when based on the writings of people that may have never existed. You seem to like to play it safe. Are you willing to please Big J to the utmost by becoming a vegetarian or are you hoping for understanding?

Statement: "If you want to roll the dice, be my guest. I choose not to."

Rebuttal: There are no dice, there is no game, and the only wager to be lost is your forfeiture of rationality for the comfort of the script of fear.

Closing statements: Even though no game exists, you have chosen to lose. That is because you accepted what was passed on to you without question. Just like buddhists, muslims, jews, zoroastrians... anyone who said "more" when they were spoon-fed their world view. If you tried to figure out why you believe in your god vs another god you'd on some level realize it was because that is the god you were taught to grow up fearing or it was because you at some point feared yourself and your choices so much that any sense of purpose became truth to you. The inner voice is powerful. It is also your voice; not god's.

Why are you so angry calling JW hypocrites? If you want answers to your question, just ask one of them to explain using your Bibile (if you have one, if not get one). There are other alternatives to blood tranfusions. Thats why so many hospitals have bloodless programs. As to the children, JW do not want their children to die, if that was the case they would not seek medical attention. Talk to a JW and get your facts straight. Do not be so judgemental without them.

Stay on point. They are not talking about Jehovah's Witnesses, they're talking about using your own blood or less blood in operations. Don't let your prejudices fog your thought processes.

there is only one word to describe you: "IGNORANT"

Then apparently Jesus Christ and multitudes of others in the Bible were hypocrites as well since they ate meat (and Fish, they have blood too -sorry!) that was properly bled. I also know many JW's that are vegetarians and that is their choice, and I applaud for it. And as far as u insinuating that JW's and their children die for nothing when they die from not accepting blood, how bout this: young man, goes to another land to kill others, loses his life fighting for HIS BELIEFS, what is he known as then? A hero right? So a parent and/or child trying to follow a Bible principle clearly shown in the scriptures (not trying to harm anyone mind you) loses their life standing up for what they believe in are HYPOCRITES? Try again man.

OH, and MAJOR PROPS for banning DHazard, guy has NO LIFE....lol.....well unless u consider copy/paste a career....lol

Scott in Ohio

If there is a belief in the bible, which now days is often not present, then you will remember that the original sin was eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Why exactly was this a sin? Because, and only because, god said it was so. Leviticus17:13,14 states that the blood is the life, and it should be poured upon the ground. It was symbolic of the life, and showing respect for it as such. Trace amounts of blood are going to be in the meat as it permeates living things, but we should not forget the sanctity of the life it represents. This is what these scriptures mean.

If the witnesses are hypocrites I do not see how. They are one of the few religions that back up their beliefs with action. They do not allow immorality, drug use, and violence among their members. They do not fight in wars against their brothers of a different nationality. I was raised one, and have fallen away and I see hypocrisy everywhere, but I do not see it in their teachings.

Ignorance flaunted under the banner of enlightenment has always been man's way, and seems it always will be. Perhaps someone who doesnt know someone else's beliefs besides what they've been told by third parties or biased research would do well to not speak of things that they do not know.

Meat is not condemned in the Bible - people will always net pick!

And, the Bible does not give the exact time or date of the Great Tribulation or Har-Magedon even though JW's being imperfect humans, too, find the need to make up or put a specific time on the end!

JW's are warned constantly in talks to NOT speculate the exact time of the end or put any date on Bible events - but, we do know the signs of the times as many in the world also recognize!! 2 Tim. 3:1

Also, I know this will fall on deaf ears - God's Word states many times that there would be ridiculers & scoffers in last days. 2 Pet. 3:3,4

I have been one of Jehovahs Witnesses for 43 years & if I learned anything, being in Jehovahs organization is far, far better than what the world has to offer!!

Shirleymae

I have been reading all of these posts and one thing I can say about all of you is that you all seem intelligent and hold valid points and beliefs. JWs or not; ignorance or not; anger or not; off topic or not; on the article or not. I have even laughed at some of the posts intended to insult one another; teared up at the comments of the children who fell away from the JW religion yet it impacted their hearts enough to comment. I actually enjoyed reading these posts and found the heated debates, though off topic most of the time, entertaining and informative.

One thing I did think about while reading these posts though, is hypocrisy. The JWs on some of these posts are being accused of being hyporcites for eating meat but abstaining from blood transfusions. Particularly the posts coming from Ruthaford and Republican$. I find the agnostic apostate driven comments to be hypocrisy at its finest, which is funny to me.

Bottomline... JEHOVAH WITNESSES ARE NO MORE HYPOCRITES FOR CHOOSING BLOOD ALTERNATIVES YET STILL EATING MEAT, THAN A NON-SMOKER IS FOR NOT SMOKING BUT CONSUMING KRAFT FOOD PRODUCTS OWNED BY PHILLIP MORRIS, OR RUTHAFORD AND REPUBLICAN$ ARE EVERY TIME THEY SPEND A PENNY, A DOLLAR, A TWENTY DOLLAR BILL WHICH STATES "IN GOD WE TRUST".

If anything kudo's to JWs for not taking blood at a hospital when they don't donate blood themselves. Seems to me that's the opposite of hypocrisy.

The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God’s law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it. Nothing hypocrital in that!!! Get your facts straight before you make a fool of yourself.

For the record JP - most JWs accept blood transfusions so long as the blood has been fractionated. i.e. they'll take plasma without the water, etc. These fractions often take 3x the amount of donated blood when being infused. So don't say they don't use donated blood - that's a lie.

For all you believing JWs that defend this stupid policy based on interpreting dogma beyond what is written - I thank you for displaying cognitive dissonance at its best. If you ever step back and look at what you're saying - you'll probably want some crazy pills.

Any and every medical procedure has its factor of risk/reward. It is not 100% safe for anything. What you need to weigh for yourself is if the reward is worth the risk. Now the JW believe that the reward is living through armagedon (as they dont believe that they go to heaven because its already full) for not getting a transfussion as thats what their version of the Bible says. But this story is not about promoting JW as a religion, but just 1 aspect of it that affects a small handfull of people per year.

Yes, these medical folks are saying that it is safer to use no transfussion vs risk ANY illness at all. But let us have common sense prevail. Do you risk certain death for the possiblity of an illness? Most would agree that death would be a bad side effect in comparison to an allegic reaction. Tylenol, Pepto, Viagra, Sudafed, Vicks, Centrum, etc... all have side effects. The way you justify it is to compare the risk of the side effect with continuing with the headache, stuffy nose, upset stomach, fever, sore muscles, performance issues or what ever the case may be.

It likely is safer to avoid any risk whatsoever, than to have any exposure. But there are other risks when you are being operated on: infection, medical mistake or loss of too much blood. There shouldnt be a blanket statement saying "no blood". Measure that with someone who is loosing blood and needs some. Are you going to tell them "no because you might get sick so its better for you to certainly die"?

I think that if one is willing to project the Bible's content into the future one should also be expected to project the supposed omniscient inspiration of the bible's author's.

Does the bible say something akin to: "and ye shall not alloweth the acceptance of one of your brother's blood, to be mixed with thine?" And then maybe give some reasons, pragmatic reasons "other than because I said so."

If not I'd say quit extrapolating that dusty tome to the modern world. Oh, maybe it mentions microorganisms or viruses. It doesn't? Damn, a non self fulfilling prophecy would have lent some credence to it. I guess I'll be eating my hat when the beast rises up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy and on his breath was the scent of pizza...

Enough of that vitriol. By the way, have you read your own post? I would consider my double red blood donations to be a "way blood can be properly used (...) in sacrifice for others." The cookies and OJ are nice, but I don't drive 100 miles round trip and spend 3-4 hours including travel to get some refreshment. And Jesus does not magically appear and donate blood for femoral artery or aortic dissection victims. At least I couldn't find any evidence of it on youtube.

Maybe you need to stop looking for 2000+ year old symbolism and look at current observable facts. Average citizens sacrifice daily for other's lives. Megalomaniacs come up with tortuous paths to explain religion something that should be included in mythology books, and better yet discarded.

Reality...it's true whether you like it or not.

republican

"Reality, whether u like it or not" Way to sound even more ridiculous. There isnt a better fiction book than today's biology books. I am astounded as how creative can humans be, not that it makes sense or even be possible, but, wow do we come up w great stories. Science contradicts the possibility or evolution but yet believe it fervently. Evolution is just another religion, a lot of faith required to connect two dots. Now, if you read the Bible, there you can see true wisdom. No human could have come up w anything similar to it.

Republican, obviously you believe that the Bible is not relevant to our lives today or you don't believe that it is inspired of God. That is your choice. However, the bible's authors were inspired by God and reflect God's message to mankind. As was stated in the Hebrew scriptures (Lev 17:13, 14), and the Christian Greek Scriptures (Acts 15:20) one should not take blood into his body. No, the bible did not say transfusions, that processed was not invented, but extremely relevant. People today believe that if a doctor gives you blood, it is all good, and if you refuse blood, you will die. In reality, taking blood into your body is dangerous because it is foreign and what most people dont know, people do die or become ill (hepatitis possibly hemophelia) from taking in someone else's blood. JWs don't take blood because it it morally wrong, the doctors were speaking of the dangers of blood transfusions. That's what the article is about. Recent medical news reveal that doctor's view of the use of blood is changing and they have taken a more conservative view of its use. It is because of JWs that many ethical doctors as well as the medical community have pioneered the multi-uses of bloodless surgery. They are embracing bloodless surgery, not because of the bible but because of the wisdom of not giving people needless blood. JWs accept medical treatment. In fact, scores of them are physicians, even surgeons, They believe that taking foreign blood into the body is wrong. While they do not take whole blood There are certain components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophilliac preparations maybe used at a patient's discretion.

And maybe, just maybe, the areas of the Bible Lorelei mentions could be taken at face value.

Maybe, just maybe, "drinking or eating blood" was written in there to discourage certain pagan customs or rituals that were going on at the time.

We were given wonderful minds that have brilliantly brought civilization to wondrous heights. God gave us those minds. This process of blood transfusions, even with its downsides, has saved many lives. And now, an even better way to use the process.

When I've had certain elective surgeries...and no, I don't mean face lifts or any kinds of cosmetic surgeries...come to think of it I may not mean 'elective' at all....Let's just say that when I've had to have certain things removed I've each time asked to be allowed to donate my own blood to be used if a transfusion became necessary. I've been allowed that. However, I've been warned that if for any reason more blood than I had put aside was needed to save my life that my surgeon would indeed call for other blood.

To conclude where the Bible is concerned.....many things written in it pertained entirely to the times at hand....she wrote as she finished her ham sandwich with a glass of milk.

Your replies reveal a gross ignorance of what the Bible says. Take it or leave it as inspired scripture, but if you are going to comment on it, at least have some basic knowledge of its primary meaning. "Ham w/ a glass of milk?" That commandment was abolished, along w/ most of the Mosaic law, after Jesus' death- the commandment about blood, which was established after Noah landed on dry land, however, was not abolished- it still held. Your point, "Republican" (yikes) is well taken- the one regarding sacrifice. It truly is a good point, I have to admit... however, the God of the Bible actually forbids taking in blood so it's also a moot point. And no, Jesus does not appear to magically heal those who are losing blood for whatever reason- no argument there. He said that those who obeyed God's commandments would be healed when he reigns as King over the earth. Believe the Bible or don't believe it, but don't castigate those who do until you at least understand what you're talking about.

Thank you for stating the truth of the matter so eloquently.

@Sherry Berry Eloquent and to the point.

yeah...i don't think so. get a clue. the only reason hospitals are trying out bloodless surgeries is because of the cost of blood (around $200/pint). it has nothing to do with outcome. the data is not conclusive and only a 40 people out of 4.5 million patients that receive blood each year (check http://www.hhs.gov/ophs/bloodsafety/2007nbcus_survey.pdf) died because of it. that's a 0.00088%. more people die for refusing blood. if you want to live your life by 1st century (or previous) medical standards (and achieve 1st century life expetancy rates) be my guest, but don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

“In the early days, it was, ‘We have Witness patients, what in the world do we do with them?’” she recalled. “Now we believe it should be the standard of care.”

Sorry, but "this crap" should be the standard of care. :)

So true! And well put.

what's a bigger myth...to believe in something that can be as scientifically sound as the 'bibles' prohibition on blood and the feats of engineering that is life and all cell composition described in bio-chemistry or the un-testable, un-scientific 'theory' of evolution that completely ignores scientific method and is based more on semantics than on science???

and if indeed they did come forth with actual valid scientific experiments producing chemicals that represent earth's early environment, and produced molecules that represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist represent??? blind chance or intelligent design???

if scientists ever could construct a cell they certainly would accomplish something amazing, but would they prove that it could be made by accident ...if anything they would prove the very opposite, would they not???

JTK. Just to clarify. JW's don't refuse to seek medical attention. They refuse to accept blood transfusions.

I know what they believe..I am one...this post was a reply to a comment about the bible being a myth...

James120756. you sound bitter and disallusioned. In some respects, I can understand how you reason. We see horrible things done in the name of religion so many want nothing to do with it. If we ate spoiled food accidently, would we never eat again? If you loved someone and they hurt you, would you ever love again? Do not write off all religion as hypocritical. JWs visit their neighbors all over the world to help them to understand the reason for world conditions and also what God purpose is for mankind. I urge all that would to examine for themselves the message that JWs teach from the bible. JWs have never taken blood transfusions because God, in his infinite wisdom set the mandate, wisely the medical community has seen the fruility of this medical practice as well. That's really what this article is about. The medical benefits of bloodless surgery, not JWs.

Some of these same people feel it is outrageous to potentially die for your allegiance to God and His laws yet will promote and bless their beloved children when they decide to serve and show their allegiance to their country by joining the military, going to war, and potentially losing their lives. -WELL SAID.

Beautifully said Ann

I realize that a cheeseburger, a steak, a ham, a BLT, BBQ chicken...whatever suits a Jehovah's Witnesses appetite is alright.

See, it's difficult to make the day to day decisions. To deny oneself over and over. That's a lot to ask of anyone.

But, when it's a one time affair and your are expecting Big J, lil' J and the holy G to greet you (or your kids) on the opposite end of what's eventually inevitable anyway. The choice is easy. Hypocritical, but dogmatically affirmingly easy. So delicious, and spiritually satisfying like a rare steak or prime rib. I'll have mine with a side order of tall glass of delusion and a side order of cold self-righteousness.

Republican$, what's with the fascination with food?

Jehovah's Witnesses are often killed because of religious zealots. So please don't preach about about suffering from religion's evils because the JWs know more than most.

The facts are, people are healthier for refusing blood transfusions. Give credit when credit is due.

You will be glad to know that Jehovah's Witnesses will not go to war, either.

Matthew 26:52 You might enjoy The Purple Triangle

Very happy, actually. The less people willing to kill others, the better.

Jehovah's Witnessses do not kill one another. (John 13:35)