Give blood against Jehovah's Witnesses' Dogma

[rhis]

By the same logic you could argue that people from lower social economic backgrounds should be excluded from giving blood, because they are more likely to suffer from blood diseases than the rest of the population and thus have contaminated blood that cannot be used safely. This I read while studying economics as a reason against payment for blood donations.

I give that argument as much clout as I fear the argument that sounds well meaning from you. It is an irrational fear based on a prejudice - one that, while you may not share it, denies people the chance to save lives, and reduces rare blood types that are much needed, not on the basis of science and statistical probabilities, but based on gut populist instinctual loathing.

Please do Google and read the science behind challenging this international ban based on sexual preference, that has more to do with 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 then legitimate concerns that really pose a danger with modern day screening and control operations.

I certainly could believe that lower socio-economic background groups would be at higher risk than those of higher wealth. But, may I see your statistics or citations showing that their risk for having a fatal, incurable disease, that could produce a false negative upon testing, is as high as for those who engage in male-male sexual contact? It is not that I do not believe you, I have simply never encountered this claim and would be surprised at the gap in my knowledge. (I specify fatal and non-curable because curable, or non-fatal diseases would be somewhat lesser issues and could be rationally given a different level of acceptable risk.)

At least in the case of AIDS (within the US), the above does not seem to be true for a reasonable definition of 'lower socio-economic status'. Looking at the CDC website (which I feel could be reasonably trusted as a source) in 2005, there were 40,540 new identified cases of AIDS. Of those 17,230, or 42.5% were believed to be contracted via male-male homosexual contact. Other intravenous drug users made up 20.6% of the new cases, and 5% fell into the overlap of the two. Those who engaged in what the CDC identified as 'high risk heterosexual sexual activity' made up about 25.5% of new cases, and the 'other' category, including, I would assume, heterosexual condom users and recipients of blood transfusions, made up 1.3%.

In particular, it is worth noting that, for males, 57% of the new cases were contracted via male-male contact. If one were to look at the total cases, 59% fall into this category. (and I am removing the category of those who could have contracted it from either intravenous drugs or male-male contact) (source http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm)

My position is simply that there exists a rational argument for excluding this section of the population based on what is deemed an acceptable risk. By cutting out a relatively small portion of the population, one can eliminate most of the risk for HIV. I, of course, do not know that this is the rational being used by the CDC, merely, I have not been convinced that their decision is based on irrational fear/hatred. If you could show me that they are allowing higher-risk groups to donate then this would go a long way towards convincing me of their bias. Alternately, if you could show me that the bar for acceptable risk was set just high enough to exclude homosexuals, then that would be convincing.

(Please do not think that I am claiming that all persons engaging in male-male homosexual contact have an equal risk, or even high risk, of contracting HIV. Obviously safer sex practices could eliminate much or all of that risk. But, I'm not sure how one would be able to train screeners to identify those who are responsible versus those who make some mistakes. Cheating, for example, would be difficult for a screener to identify, and I feel that people might be likely to lie about it.)

And, I apologize for my slight derail of your thread, so I will give you the last word on this topic. I also intend to donate blood when I'm again eligible.

[Homo economicus]

rhis

Thanks for the last word before we veer too far from JW dogma - though in lesser ways there is a connection. I had hoped that someone would create a thread on the gay ban of blood donations but that has not come up. It may well be time for someone to do that, but I would rather someone else that knows more would get the ball rolling. I think you know where my support is on that issue. If anyone does please do link on this thread.

My source was in 6th form Economics, and I remember the economics lecturer being furious with the reasoning that paying for blood donations would increase costs because more blood would come from lower SEGs that would have infected blood compared to others; and yet would be more willing to give. Yet the charitable incentive to give blood may mean a downfall in total supply if a payment was given. There were no statistics to provided in the text book, but any country that provided payments when previously there were none one could examine if the costs of screening and rejecting of blood went up or not. In short, who ever the economist was that I used in a health economics presentation 13 years ago (only kept university stuff) his hypothesis could be empirically tested with data.

The stats you provide do not provide an overwhelming case for the rejection of blood offered on the basis of sexual activity. Anymore than the fact that as an Englishman I cannot give blood outside of the UK due to fears of BSE/CJD - because if there is legitimate concern here than the whole of the UK is doomed to a slow and fatal deterioration of its population. I call it an over reaction. In the BSE case it is fear over science. In the homosexual it is prejudice over science.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4490.html

“Rational blood donation guidelines need to be founded upon the best evidence-based science and the behaviour of individuals, not upon archaic data and preconceptions about groups of people. The FDA’s current guidelines imply that gay men are the primary agents for the spread of HIV, while giving heterosexuals a false sense of security about their sexual behaviour and responsibility. These are two very dangerous messages for the FDA to be reinforcing.”

“We agree with the FDA that the first priority must be to ensure a safe blood supply. But we should all be concerned when the FDA makes important decisions that are not firmly based in science,” Ginsberg concluded.

In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses it is dogma over science, as my blog talking about the scriptural scribblings with a false sense of what blood is all about leads to not eating it, which then is interpreted as including transfusions to save life.

On the one we are arguing over principle and the supply of blood (reason and science). The other we are talking about the labelling of children and their parents risking the lives of someone not old enough to make that choice.

Glad you are donating blood by the way

[slimbo77]

I would do it but I have this sort of irrational fear about donating blood. I don't really know why, I'm not afraid of needles, of having blood drawn or seeing it done. I think its from a story I heard when I was younger about this kid getting AIDS through a transfusion, and it just sort of stuck with me even though I wouldn't be given any blood. It's just the association with it. So I've never really looked into it. This is a good idea though.

I was once the same. I was (And still am) scared of syringes. Can't even watch someone getting an injection on film or TV and it gives me the heebies. But some years ago (maybe 5 or 6), my old man, out of the blue, was suddenly very ill indeed. He had a bleeding ulcer, which he was not at all aware of until, over night he went from being absolutely fine, to being in a critical condition and desperately in need of a blood transfusion. I can;t tell you the fright we all got! Could have easily killed him, but for some brave soul somewhere deciding to give blood. From then on, I can put up with a litle bit of the heebie jeebies once every 13 weeks. I mean there's being scared of needles and there's being scared that someone you love is going to die. No contest.

I'm pretty sure in all other ways, you wouldn't let the irrational rule your head. The whole reason for doing this is because some folks have an irrational fear of God that let's children in need of blood die. Get one up the JWs, give it a try at least the once...I'll guaruntee you'll not think twice on doing it again and again. It really isn't bad at all.

Hope I haven't gone too far down the guilt trip route. I do genuinely know it's difficult when you have a phobia!
Good luck!

[rhis]

Get one up the JWs, give it a try at least the once...I'll guaruntee you'll not think twice on doing it again and again. It really isn't bad at all.

Hope I haven't gone too far down the guilt trip route. I do genuinely know it's difficult when you have a phobia!
Good luck!

Also, when you do give blood you don't really see any blood. They just ask you some questions, swab you down with iodine, then there's a cold prick and you just wait a bit.

Except for maybe a drop or two, the blood stays in the nice medical looking bags and really doesn't really look like much.

So, if you wanted an easier way to expose yourself to your phobia, this would be a good one.

[aw6334]

Get one up the JWs, give it a try at least the once...I'll guaruntee you'll not think twice on doing it again and again. It really isn't bad at all.

Hope I haven't gone too far down the guilt trip route. I do genuinely know it's difficult when you have a phobia!
Good luck!

Also, when you do give blood you don't really see any blood. They just ask you some questions, swab you down with iodine, then there's a cold prick and you just wait a bit.

Except for maybe a drop or two, the blood stays in the nice medical looking bags and really doesn't really look like much.

So, if you wanted an easier way to expose yourself to your phobia, this would be a good one.

I agree totally. It really doesn't hurt - there is a bit of local anaesthetic in the swab, and you have to remember that these people are drawing blood all day - they are much more experienced than your local GP, or hospital nurse, at needle insertion.

Just run your fingernail along the inside of your elbow - did it hurt? no, just a sharp, scratchy feeling (depending on what your fingernails are like of course! If you bite them you won't feel a thing!) - well, that's what if feels like. You don't have to look!

AND you get free coffee and biscuits afterwards

[hellsbells]

I agree. I had to receive blood a few years ago, and it didn't hurt one iota.

HB

[Phoenix*]

Hi Homo economicus,

I'm sure if you had children of your own and they needed emergency treatment you would want the safest, best treatment available.
Are you aware that bloodless surgery is increasingly regarded as being safer than receiving blood?
Just do a google search on bloodless surgery and read some of the results.

Receiving stored blood carries the risk of bacterial and viral infections.
It also suppresses the immune system, making the patient more prone to infections. Thousands of patients are estimated to die every year because of this.
Many others die because of human error in receiving the wrong type of blood.

Jehovah's Witnesses have produced a DVD entitled 'Transfusion Alternatives' which you'd do well to watch, in order to make an informed choice about your own medical options.
It's noteworthy that one surgeon featured in the DVD said they aim to treat all children without blood, regardless of faith, because it is the safest option.

You could also read more here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm
This online brochure quotes Danish scientist Niels Jerne, who shared the 1984 Nobel Prize for Medicine. He's not a Witness, but he refused a blood transfusion for health reasons.
You also have this quote from Dr James Fletcher in the October 1988 issue of 'Pediatrics':
"I fear it is not uncommon for professional arrogance to supplant sound medical judgment. Treatments that are regarded as 'the best today' are modified or discarded tomorrow. Which is more dangerous, a 'religious parent' or an arrogant physician who is convinced that his or her treatment is absolutely vital?"

Jehovah's Witnesses love their children just as much as any parent. They are convinced that we benefit from observing God's laws, and where abstaining from blood is concerned, recent medical science would seem to support that. It may be a 'stone age idea', but avoiding blood carries 21st century benefits.

Regards

[Kevin Ronayne]

Hi Homo economicus,

I'm sure if you had children of your own and they needed emergency treatment you would want the safest, best treatment available.
Are you aware that bloodless surgery is increasingly regarded as being safer than receiving blood?
Just do a google search on bloodless surgery and read some of the results.

Receiving stored blood carries the risk of bacterial and viral infections.
It also suppresses the immune system, making the patient more prone to infections. Thousands of patients are estimated to die every year because of this.
Many others die because of human error in receiving the wrong type of blood.

Jehovah's Witnesses have produced a DVD entitled 'Transfusion Alternatives' which you'd do well to watch, in order to make an informed choice about your own medical options.
It's noteworthy that one surgeon featured in the DVD said they aim to treat all children without blood, regardless of faith, because it is the safest option.

You could also read more here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm
This online brochure quotes Danish scientist Niels Jerne, who shared the 1984 Nobel Prize for Medicine. He's not a Witness, but he refused a blood transfusion for health reasons.
You also have this quote from Dr James Fletcher in the October 1988 issue of 'Pediatrics':
"I fear it is not uncommon for professional arrogance to supplant sound medical judgment. Treatments that are regarded as 'the best today' are modified or discarded tomorrow. Which is more dangerous, a 'religious parent' or an arrogant physician who is convinced that his or her treatment is absolutely vital?"

Jehovah's Witnesses love their children just as much as any parent. They are convinced that we benefit from observing God's laws, and where abstaining from blood is concerned, recent medical science would seem to support that. It may be a 'stone age idea', but avoiding blood carries 21st century benefits.

Regards

Question: Would you let your children bleed to death?

Spare us the pseudo-scientific justifications. You are just trying to rationalise and justify what your religious teachings say. Same old, same old ...

So, when are the last days coming? That's what we want to know. And, while I'm at it, just how many are going to be saved?

[Homo economicus]

Phoneix, I witnessed door to door for so many years. Next you will be telling me about how John Paul the second became ill from a blood transfusion. Well, maybe not - the pope has less authority than myself or Kevin round here I have read "Reasoning from the Scriptures" and attended Theocratic Ministry School. I know the tricks and the words.

The issue is given the choice between a blood transfusion or death with no other alternatives than the witness will choose death for themselves but also for their child.

The point of my campaign is that is no choice you should legally be allowed to make for a child by playing the religious freedom card. For one you have no right to label your child with your religious background and secondly it is not your life to risk for an irrational belief.

As I argued with another Jehovah's Witness on my blog on this issue the point is not that you regard other products as being better. Even he admitted that it is based on religious reasons not health. So do not try and argue otherwise.

Alternatives is one that can be tested with scientific inquiry.

The other or nothing is one that tries not to defy belief in something that is ancient based on a false understanding of the workings of the human body, nor knew that blood transfusions could save lives.

I go into slightly more detail on the scriptural underpinnings on my blog, and the comments there with another JW there. This is a usual trick they play - misgivings on the effectiveness of blood and the dangers of infected blood. Which misses the point that they do this for religious reasons.

Link here

[Phoenix*]

Hello again,

You say: 'The issue is given the choice between a blood transfusion or death with no other alternatives than the witness will choose death for themselves but also for their child.'

But the point is, there are always alternatives to receiving blood, and they are generally the safer option.
If your faith rests on medical science rather than God shouldn't you at least investigate these alternatives in order to make an informed choice?
Have you done a google search on bloodless surgery?

If a winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine refuses blood transfusions, is he being irrational?
If a parent requests bloodless treatment for their child, while seeking the best alternatives available, are they too being irrational?

It's true that the primary reason for Jehovah's Witnesses rejecting blood is obedience to God's law.
But as I've said, all of God's laws are for our benefit.
And since you are not convinced by the spiritual reasons for rejecting blood, I thought it would be best to stick to the scientific arguments.

We could debate your premise that faith in a resurrection is 'irrational', just as I believe that faith in our universe and intelligent life being an accident is irrational, but perhaps this isn't the best place...

Cheers