Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

A faithful young sister and the opportunistic media


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1134 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

I find it so irritating how dogmatic the world gets about blood transfusions. People vilify the Witnesses, without seeing how these medical professionals are stripping patients of the right to self-determination when it comes to healthcare. No good ever comes from opposing Jehovah's standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also curious the typical approachi in the media: that certain JW's condition is grave BECAUSE OF his/her rejection of blood transfusions.

How many people do you know that are in a serious condition as a result of not accepting blood? It is usually the other way around: they get to a serious condition as a result of a disease, a reaction to surgery, a medical error, or whatever, AND THEN the doctors decide to administer blood.

Couldn't we equally say that the patient's condition is grave because of the hospital refusal to use alternative treatments?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's typical with the media. Let's say there is a car accident and a man is rushed to the hospital, he is given a blood transfusion, but he dies anyway. When the media report on it they say he died because of the accident. However, if one of Jehovah's Witnesses is in an accident, is rushed to the hospital and refuses a blood transfusion and dies, the media says he died because he refused a transfusion. According to the media, the car accident had nothing to do with it. I don't get it.

 

If someone dies after refusing blood, it proves nothing. He may have died anyway. If someone accepts a blood transfusion and lives, he may have survived anyway. There's no way of telling what would have happened in the other circumstance. I have never heard of even one hospital autopsy report that said someone died because of refusing a blood transfusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Just another side of Satan's smear campaign against Jehovah and any who choose to follow Him.

 

So true! This smear campaign regarding our stance  on the blood  issue could have well be avoided if the physicians, judges, media, etc. had went to jw.org and clicked on the link entitled: "Medical Information for Clinicians" for factual information.  But when one is looking for a story with a high rate of sensationalism that could garner high TV ratings, why would they want to actually print out the facts of the matter?

 

1 John 5:19...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 12:45 AM, Katty said:

I find it so irritating how dogmatic the world gets about blood transfusions. People vilify the Witnesses, without seeing how these medical professionals are stripping patients of the right to self-determination when it comes to healthcare. No good ever comes from opposing Jehovah's standards.

This is especially true when they can back door an adult with a midnight court order to overrule your rights to self-determination. I don't believe this has much to do with "saving" a life as it has with prejudice towards Witnesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sunshine said:

So is anyone questioning the fact that the crucial life saving blood wasn't so crucial after all?

Nah, since the moment the sister said she was recovering the media have lost all interest in her story. No carrion to sell there.

 

11 hours ago, Bob said:

This is especially true when they can back door an adult with a midnight court order to overrule your rights to self-determination. I don't believe this has much to do with "saving" a life as it has with prejudice towards Witnesses. 

While this is true in many cases, in this particular case the doctors did respect the wishes of the patient. Of course, the fact that she had signed and registered a legal document contributed a lot. Once they knew of that document they didn't insist because they knew it was pointless.

 

It was the girl's parents that called a judge to force that transfusion and then called the media. They simply were desperate to save their daughter and resorted to anyone they could think of. It was actually the media that exaggerated everything to have a good story to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s funny how people criticize us for refusing blood transfusions but many people, especially North Americans, find nothing wrong with dying ‘for their country’. Your country can’t save you, only Jehovah can. Also, many people in Christendom believe that the mark of the beast will be a literal mark or RFID chip imposed upon people by the “Antichrist.” They boast how they would rather die than take this mark and disobey God. How is that any different? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brother Jack said:

It’s funny how people criticize us for refusing blood transfusions but many people, especially North Americans, find nothing wrong with dying ‘for their country’. Your country can’t save you, only Jehovah can. Also, many people in Christendom believe that the mark of the beast will be a literal mark or RFID chip imposed upon people by the “Antichrist.” They boast how they would rather die than take this mark and disobey God. How is that any different? 

 

It's a "shame" nobody in Germany believes neither in the "mark of the beast" prophecy nor in "dying for the country" (for obvious reasons), otherwise I would find this would be a great point to make in front of such people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a program I saw on TV here in the United States when I was 12.  It's a different story than the above sister but a sister was hit in front of her husband and teenage boys by a drunk driver.  Long story short it was a horrible situation the Paramedics said the worst they'd ever seen from a drunk driver and the driver left the scene.

 

She was rushed to the hospital and died an hour later.  The driver was arrested and the Prosecutor filed charges for 1st-degree manslaughter (1st degree being the worst) as well as second-degree murder.  The man had driven drunk and had been caught twice before and the last time the prosecutor warned him that if he did it a third time he would throw the book at him.

 

Well, the District Attorney Prosecutor followed through but the man's lawyer got sympathy from the media because he went to the media saying that she had died because of refusing blood and would have lived if she accepted it.

 

The lawyer made the same arguments during the man's trial in court and said that he should not be held responsible.

 

The Doctor who tried to help the sister testified that she did lose a very large amount of blood but regardless no matter what they would have done her chances of living were 5% 10% at the most.  He described some of her lethal injuries that persons usually die from if they get those injuries. 

 

Due to the Doctor's testimony as well as other reasons, the Doctor did help the prosecution's case.  The man was convicted by the jury of the first-degree manslaughter.  They found him Not-Guilty of murder because he wasn't trying to kill the woman.  But he was responsible.  

Also, they had the option of choosing second-degree manslaughter which is less serious and would have had a less severe prison sentence.  But they chose first-degree.

 

For those in other countries, you probably know already but in the USA guilt is decided by a jury of 12 people and all 12 have to say Guilty in order for a person to be found guilty.  

 

Anyway,  I don't know what the Judge sentenced him to.  But in that State, the penalty for first-degree manslaughter is a minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 15 years.

 

I bring this story up because it was said that she would have lived if she'd had a blood transfusion dogmatically, yet her chances of living were only 5% 10% at best no matter what they did and she had extremely lethal injuries.  Also, despite what the man did they said questioned his responsibility.  

 

 

Edited by JW2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Brother Jack said:

It’s funny how people criticize us for refusing blood transfusions but many people, especially North Americans, find nothing wrong with dying ‘for their country’. Your country can’t save you, only Jehovah can. Also, many people in Christendom believe that the mark of the beast will be a literal mark or RFID chip imposed upon people by the “Antichrist.” They boast how they would rather die than take this mark and disobey God. How is that any different? 

This is true. Die for your country and you're a hero, die for God and you're a fanatic. I used to make this point with nationalistic opposers here in the U.S., but nowadays, too many cults and religious extremists have blindly followed their leaders to their death or given their lives as supposed martyrs, so they tend to label anyone who is willing to die for their faith as a fanatic. You can't win!  😯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2019 at 11:45 AM, sunshine said:

So is anyone questioning the fact that the crucial life saving blood wasn't so crucial after all?

As Carlos said, the media has lost interest when the alternative treatment began to produce results. Now they are interested in the case of a man who helped his seriously ill wife to commit suicide (i.e. he killed her because she couldn't). In this case, the media are applauding the man's decision. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my Google news feed about Jehovah's Witnesses, I only see two types of stories: favorable stories in support of the persecution in Russia, and persecution of us over blood and other issues where our faith does not play a part. It's always interesting to me that when they report on a crime supposedly committed by a self-proclaimed Witness, they always have to mention the person's faith in the headline. Why does the headline never read "Catholic man robs bank" or "Episcopalian murders family"? They do it to grab headlines because we're "unknown" or "mysterious" -- yeah, some mysterious people who've only been going going door-to-door for over a hundred years handing out free literature about what we believe!

 

It's also interesting how people get themselves worked up over the blood issue and become so dogmatic about how people should be forced to accept treatment regardless of their beliefs. Don't they realize that if our freedoms are infringed upon theirs could be next?

 

Here's the other problem with the media. They blame the organization because they think we blindly follow the Watchtower and don't our own relationships with Jehovah. I heard one report out of Russia that the officials felt they HAD to ban our organization to "protect our citizens" against the organization's doctrines about blood, as if those brothers and sisters are only rejecting blood transfusions because the branch is telling them they can't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.1.2 (changelog)