Parents decide to let their daughter die instead of allowing a blood transfusion on orders from their JW elders.
Convincing people to let their children or themselves die because of the mistranslation of a biblical verse concerning "eating blood"; how they equate that to blood transfusions is beyond me.
For starters, I don't belong to any Christian sect, but this is just plain slanderous...they don't just "let their children die" -- they demand medical
alternatives to blood transfusion...that's not "letting their children die". This is why I initially declined to participate in this thread, because I knew that people would just regurgitate the same old slanderous claims I've been hearing for decades.
Here are some facts. The Bible is VERY clear that God view blood as sacred, and God commands humans not to take in into their bodies, and its many more than "a Biblical verse", so its not at the orders of JW Elders...I'm certain they give Biblical support for their view:
Gen 9:4 - Do not eat the blood.
Leviticus 3:17: You must pour out the blood
1 Sam 14:33 - They sinned by eating meat with the blood
Acts 15:19, 20 - Abstain from blood.
(Since this is part of the Christian Greek Scriptures, this is simply a general view of blood passed down by the Governing Body during the first Century for Christians to adhere to)
Duet 12:24 - Pour out the blood as ground water
Leviticus 17:12 - You must not eat the blood
Now, you can argue whether or not this can apply to transfusions, but don't sit here and say they use a "mistranslation of a biblical verse", because they have several verses to back this up. Secondly, God certainly commanded that blood be poured out onto the ground...there is no provision that I've seen that excludes human blood from this mandate.
More importantly, the medical field has moved to more bloodless surgeries for good reasons. Introduction to more facts:
There are a number of benefits of bloodless surgery and blood conservation procedures. Blood conservation is a combination of surgical methods, dietary measures and other advanced techniques aimed at limiting the amount of blood lost during surgery. The universal goal with any blood conservation method is to eliminate the need for a blood transfusion. Opting to go with bloodless surgery instead of a transfusion eliminates the potential risk of illness that comes with a blood transfusion, which includes HIV, hepatitis and more.
https://www.ohiohealth.com/benefitsofbloodconservation/
Also:
Bloodless medicine appeals to many doctors because it carries low risk of post-operative infection when compared with procedures requiring blood transfusion. Additionally, it may be economically beneficial in some countries. For example, the cost of blood in the
US hovers around
$500 a unit ( Feb 2012 Red Cross charges
$700/unit - according to union rep in OH and hospitals' cost is about
$1000 to $1500/unit- real cost is usually
5 times these amounts when everything is added in ), including testing.
[13] These costs are further increased as, according to Jan Hoffman (an administrator for the blood conservation program at
Geisinger Medical Center in
Danville, Pennsylvania), hospitals must pick up the tab for the first three units of blood infused per patient per calendar year. By contrast, hospitals may be reimbursed for drugs that boost a patient's red blood cell count, a treatment approach often used before and after surgery to reduce the need for a
blood transfusion. However, such payments are highly contingent upon negotiations with insurance companies. Geisinger Medical Center began a blood conservation program in 2005 and reported
a recorded savings of $273,000 in its first six months of operation.
[14] The Cleveland Clinic lowered their direct costs from $
35.5 million in 2009 to $26.4 million in 2012 - a savings of nearly $10 million over 3 years.
[15]
Health risks appear to be another contributing factor in their appeal, especially in light of recent studies that suggest that blood transfusions can increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates.[16][17] Thus the recovery rate is faster with bloodless surgery allowing the patient to leave earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery#Benefits
So, the medical field has taken a serious look into bloodless surgeries and seen how they can do nothing but
HELP -- the JW's actually helped pioneer a safer medical practice.
Now, there is a risk that if a person has lost a life-threatening amount of blood, should a believer disobey what they see as God's commands when their lives are at risk?
I think that's a question for each person to answer.
I'm done with this thread -- just wanted to clear up some things that liars simply don't want you to see.