Many Miles

Cryosupernatant plasma is not, never has been, and will never be viewed as a "cure all" by anyone in the medical field. Because it's not. There is a very good reason why the product is not used as a simple volume expander; there are much safer alternatives than a product rendered from blood. A primary use of cryosupernantant plasma is for plasma exchange therapy for patients suffering Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Purpura (TTP). In trauma cases with massive blood loss volume is important, but oxygen delivery is the primary thing. (Having efficient volume allows oxygen transport to tissue, but you must have sufficient red cells to transport enough oxygen to maintain tissue viability and function) Without sufficient oxygen tissue dies, and at some point that failure becomes an irreversible cascading event leading to death.

Any person who sacrifices their life under an honest impression that what they are doing is right, has done nothing wrong insofar as I can tell. However, if someone taught the basis for that sacrifice and that basis is false (or unsound), then there is accounting to be held for the teacher. If you're going to teach a certain thing (notion) is worthy of sacrificing life over, you better be right in your teaching. Moreover, if in any way that teacher learns the teaching is false (or unsound in any way!) and continues teaching it nevertheless, the bloodguilt goes from bad to worse.

Thank you TrueTomHarley. All I can say is the cuts have been more than one, and each one is deep. Though I can and do engage in many topics, this one stirs from the bottom of wounds too many of us have had to face. And too often we try to rationalize what has happened by looking at everything except the center of it all, which is a religious position that cannot stand up in the face of basic challenges, and in fact is self-condemning based on premises offered in its support.

Dying is still the leading cause of death. From the day a person's born, the most any medical doctor can do is help prolong the individual's life and quality of life. When life is lost over something concocted, called "a religious position," maintained despite solid refutation, and then it's double-downed on by threat of being cut off from family and life-long friends should you honestly opt to do the right thing, then morphs through multiple iterations, then conceals critical options (e.g., cryosupernatant plasma for plasma exchange therapy!), it goes through underpinnings like changing socks, then something's wrong. Yes, I'm completely aware probably the majority of HLC members (if not every single one of them!) are relieved when treatment of young children is left for competent doctors to decide the best treatment options without interference by family during emergencies. In the post Bethany Hughes medical system we find institutions like SickKids In Toronto, Canada who, with full support of the society, have developed a special letter of understanding available to parents with minor children in the medical system. This is a document that is signed by treating doctors and the child's parents and is "TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT OF THE CHART". (Upper case in original document) The primary language reads: "In an emergency, where your child is apparently experiencing severe suffering or is at risk, if the treatment is not administered promptly, of sustaining serious bodily harm, medical staff will provide treatment that is allowed by the law, which may include blood transfusion." This document was put together just for JWs, and it was drafted with full support from the society's hospital information services department. When JW parents have minor children in other hospitals HLC members have initiated inquiries as to whether the institution has such a letter of understanding, and if they do not would they consider using one. Now why would such an initiative be made if not for 1) wanting the child to live and 2) keeping the matter out of the courts and hence under the radar of publicity? What does the initiative to create and then execute such a document say about how devoted the society is to its religious position?

Yeah. Looks like I've had heavier things to deal with than keeping up with cinematic nuance. Have you ever helped a mother and father deal with the death of a small child who died because they refused a recommended medical remedy with a proven good outcome and, instead, you were part of talking them into opting for something the society said was okay but was nevertheless a tremendous gamble? Then the child died, and died exactly of what the treating physician said was the primary complication that could have been avoided with the recommended treatment? Oh. I forgot. You were at the movies. My apologies.

Need I? Really? Do you really need something like this spelled out with a crayon? People are dying. Children are dying. Is that not worth your time to research and get to know details of the religious position, just to make sure of all things and that the teaching is fine? Really? "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue." That stands as one of the most honest things that's ever been printed by the society in it's entire history. Literally. Yes. You read that right. Some of us have felt it. It looks like some of us have failed to understand the impact, or were not empathetic. What does that say? Oh. I forgot. You were busy looking for pieces to a puzzle. I'm so glad you found a big piece. Congratulations. While we have mothers and fathers grieving, you found a big piece. And what the society wrote about those few children is all you needed to know. Right? Ever heard of anemia? When a person's organs fail to get enough oxygen those organs begin to suffer irreversible tissue damage. It leads to death. Whatever therapeutics may or may not be successful treating an underlying condition, they have no opportunity to treat the patient if the tissue of their organs have failed to a point of no return. They die. Because of a religious position. That's why they didn't have a chance to live longer. That is why. Play games all you want. I hope you find more pieces to whatever puzzle you're looking to compose. I hope you find what you're looking for. But I hope you never have to see it, or feel it. The humanity in me compels that confession.

Well, well. Someone looking for puzzle parts thinks they found "a big piece". Impressive. A big piece. The piece? Presenting as a man on a mission. Sounds kinda medical doctor-ish. Must be the big piece. If you want to talk about another subject, I'm game, if I know anything to share on the subject. I tend to speak when I have something to add. I tend to remain to myself otherwise. If I have a mission, it's to share, learn, grow and help anyone I can along the way. Any piece found for that? No? Oh. At the very least you have to yield that I put information out there to be challenged. Isn't that how people learn from one another? Make of things as you will. It's best that way, and that's the way it is regardless. I'm just glad you found a big piece. Impressive.

That's very irreverent, and it makes light of mothers and fathers who've lost children over this issue. It's another version of Just play the game we all know we're playing and move on. That doesn't prevent the next preventable death, or the one after that, or the others to follow. Also, I'm not playing a game. Just going along with it is what people do who know a horribleness is done by whatever governance they find themselves under, and they just wait for someone else to come along and fix it, and they don't even talk about it to know if it's right or wrong, or what the reason is for it being done. There is a conspicuous absence in your response here. I'm sure you know what it is. But that's for you do decide, and it's best that way. In the end, we each have to stand by ourselves.

From a purely medical standpoint, I'd not advocate for a liberal use of donor blood. For all the reasons you cite plus more. From a purely medical perspective I'd advocate whatever is the current gold standard of care. If that includes use of some product rendered from donor blood, fine. If that includes abstaining from use of some product rendered from donor blood, that's fine too. Undoubtedly the JW patient population who refused donor blood products over the years has pushed the science of medicine in ways that may otherwise have taken longer. But here is a critical thing that so far has not changed: there is still such a thing as bleeding to death. That is to say, if in a medical setting a patient's peripheral blood lacks sufficient volume or sufficient oxygen distribution capacity the patient is going to die. The GB has not tried to advance the gold standard of medical care. The GB has acted to protect a religious position it has found itself entrenched in, with adherents it's compelled to place a lot of skin in the game by way of preventable deaths. What they've done is modified the doctrine to still be able to say they have the doctrine but mitigate the damage it causes. (More on that in my question to you below, should you choose to answer it) That's no Nobel Prize effort. People are still dying due to this policy, and particularly they're dying the result of severe anemia. They die because they can't accept transfusion of donor red cells without losing fellowship of lifetime close friends and family due to the isolating effect of the sister policy of unilaterally disassociating the person. I'm not sharing this information to convince anyone to change their mind. It's just information for people to do with what they want. I'm also not sharing this information to protect a preferential view. If I'm wrong I put this out so whatever is wrong can be identified and learned from. You've inquired of me regarding a purely medical perspective. I'll do the same for you. Here's a medical question for you: What is the simplest method you can think of to use blood medicinally that does not have a patient receiving whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma?

There was more than one reason I choked a bit on that attribution from Splane. - Splane is part of the GB who deemed the GB is the "faithful slave". - Schroeder was part of the GB who deemed those who felt the "faithful slave" pictures only the leading ones of the anointed as "objectors". According to Splane, we should learn from Schroeder. According to Schroeder, Splane would fit into the "objectors" category. Choke...choke... Alfred Hitchcock anyone?

Yes. I heard that. Loud and clear. Couldn't help but wonder the same as you did. Only you had even more personal reason for feeling what you felt than I.

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now? Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine. What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true. Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

I had discussions with him. He knows me. He had no answers either, except to fall back on secular constitutional legalism, which proves nothing from a logical let alone a scriptural perspective. But the worst was his use of demonstrably false premises. He just could not accept that certain premises put forth by the society could be false. This despite evidence as plain as his face in a mirror. Those premises asserted by the society are presented here:

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it. It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs. I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961. In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about. For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that. I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

In that case there's a single doctrinal position you need to apply yourself to. The society's blood doctrine. That doctrine has led to a lot of premature death. From day one there has been disagreement within the community of JWs about the merit of this doctrine. From day one. And people are dying over it. If that teaching is demonstrably wrong then the society has bloodguilt. If a person stands in even tacit support of that, natural law condemns them. Also, what God said to Noah condemns them too. Look close. Look very close. And, look hard. You don't want to be on the wrong side of that teaching. "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends." (Jesus) In reverse chronological order: - If we have permission to donate our life to save a friend then we have permission to donate our blood to save a friend - Christians have never been under Mosaic law provisions related to blood - Noah was told nothing whatsoever about donor blood - God said nothing to Adam or Eve prohibiting them from anything they might want to do with blood

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law. Yes. See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect). More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

Yes. We all have natural law written in our hearts. Those who choose to follow it don't need a hierarchy telling them what to do. Also, when encountering someone else holding the same common cause there is an equally natural unity, and that unity will maintain despite non-essential differences that may exist. Folks who want a different system, say a political human government (nation), probably need some form of hierarchy. It's not going to be pretty. Man dominating men leads to ruin. After creating Adam and Eve God gave humans dominion over animals, plants and the earth. He did not given man dominion over men. Do not put your trust in nobles or in earthling men. Read that again. Are you sure you read that?

It's likely that the majority of persons who have ever lived never heard of the man from Nazareth, Jesus. Yet all men have had opportunity to hear and respond to natural law and in doing so manifested fear (respect) for God and righteousness based on that law written in their hearts. What I've offered on this matter is not the other arguments you allude to (which you admit so I don't know why you throw them into a response to me). My offer is no argument from silence. We have the testimony of Peter and his entourage of Cornelius and his household having holy spirit being poured onto them though not worshiping as Judaism and before baptism as Christian. God accepted them just as they stood at the time. Of course, we know they were invited to baptism into Christ. But their worship was already acceptable to God.

No. There was no consequence. Jesus gave Thomas what he needed.

Here's the testimony you allude to: Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth? A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role. Jackson said "we" (read: GB) "view ourselves as trying to fulfill" the role of a slave caring for the spiritual food. Yoda 101: Do or do not. There is no try. What is arrogant is the GB enforcing what comes from it under pain of potentially lethal shunning when, according to Jackson, the GB is not actually DOING the work of caring for spiritual food but, rather, are only TRYING to fulfill that role. If the role played by the GB is as you say then it's MEN should be CHRISTLY ENOUGH to say that in full open view, even if it means they are exposed to great personal sacrifice. Isn't that what Jesus did? To those under its foot, the GB acts like a dictator. To those not under its foot, the GB acts like there's nothing to see here; please just move along and leave us alone (so we can keep doing to our subjects what we want to do to them because this is religion and religion is a protected activity).

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides. Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn.

Let’s just call him Soco and move on. You Goo-wi-dat? Lol

LOL. You asked for it. So you got it.