Many Miles

A sobering reminder that a benefit-to-risk analysis is critical for any biological tissue transplantation, and transfusion of any product rendered from blood is precisely that. This is why, for example, transfusion of products like cryosupernatant are not recommended for basic need of a volume expander. In that case, there are much safer products. But, if a patient presents with TTP and they need plasma exchange therapy to survive, then cryosupernatant rises in terms of a benefit-to-risk analysis. 

It is not commonly recognized how smart beavers are. Most of them are graduates of Dam U.

Many years ago I performed a little experiment involving hospital liaison committees and their training. It was fairly easy. At that time various members in diverse parts of the world had published email accounts in recommended practices documents published for use in hospital systems. I asked a simple question. Could JWs accept transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma as a matter of personal conscience?
With one exception, each responded that they didn't know, but they'd check and get back with me. The one exception responded initially that he didn't think so, but he too said he'd check to make sure. Eventually every one of them responded with an answer. Yes. They could. When the one HLC elder who initially had guessed "No" responded, he said "You should realize this component from blood is on the very limit of what we can accept as a matter of conscience."
My experiment was not to test knowledge of HLC members. What I wondered was just how tightly held the information was. It turned out it was so tightly held that not one of the HLCs I contacted knew the answer. That's how close to the vest that information was being kept.
It was professionals in the medical field who first made it known to public view about this product being acceptable if a JW wanted to take it. Even today, you can't find any reference at all to this at the society's web page, unless you first go to the special Medical Information for Clinicians section. Even then, all you find there is a link to an article on the use of it for TTP patients.

My piece of advice: Conduct your own thorough research in order to draw a conclusion worthy of being owned by you. You have to know your own capabilities and limitations, but don't let other people think for you if you can help it. There are folks with passions, and there are folks with biases, and there are outright charlatans too. Of course, there are unbiased experts. But you have to dig to make sure whatever information you gather is viable, and then you have to make sure whatever you deduce from that information is done soundly.

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.

Many years ago I performed a little experiment involving hospital liaison committees and their training. It was fairly easy. At that time various members in diverse parts of the world had published email accounts in recommended practices documents published for use in hospital systems. I asked a simple question. Could JWs accept transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma as a matter of personal conscience?
With one exception, each responded that they didn't know, but they'd check and get back with me. The one exception responded initially that he didn't think so, but he too said he'd check to make sure. Eventually every one of them responded with an answer. Yes. They could. When the one HLC elder who initially had guessed "No" responded, he said "You should realize this component from blood is on the very limit of what we can accept as a matter of conscience."
My experiment was not to test knowledge of HLC members. What I wondered was just how tightly held the information was. It turned out it was so tightly held that not one of the HLCs I contacted knew the answer. That's how close to the vest that information was being kept.
It was professionals in the medical field who first made it known to public view about this product being acceptable if a JW wanted to take it. Even today, you can't find any reference at all to this at the society's web page, unless you first go to the special Medical Information for Clinicians section. Even then, all you find there is a link to an article on the use of it for TTP patients.

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.

Many years ago I performed a little experiment involving hospital liaison committees and their training. It was fairly easy. At that time various members in diverse parts of the world had published email accounts in recommended practices documents published for use in hospital systems. I asked a simple question. Could JWs accept transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma as a matter of personal conscience?
With one exception, each responded that they didn't know, but they'd check and get back with me. The one exception responded initially that he didn't think so, but he too said he'd check to make sure. Eventually every one of them responded with an answer. Yes. They could. When the one HLC elder who initially had guessed "No" responded, he said "You should realize this component from blood is on the very limit of what we can accept as a matter of conscience."
My experiment was not to test knowledge of HLC members. What I wondered was just how tightly held the information was. It turned out it was so tightly held that not one of the HLCs I contacted knew the answer. That's how close to the vest that information was being kept.
It was professionals in the medical field who first made it known to public view about this product being acceptable if a JW wanted to take it. Even today, you can't find any reference at all to this at the society's web page, unless you first go to the special Medical Information for Clinicians section. Even then, all you find there is a link to an article on the use of it for TTP patients.

My piece of advice: Conduct your own thorough research in order to draw a conclusion worthy of being owned by you. You have to know your own capabilities and limitations, but don't let other people think for you if you can help it. There are folks with passions, and there are folks with biases, and there are outright charlatans too. Of course, there are unbiased experts. But you have to dig to make sure whatever information you gather is viable, and then you have to make sure whatever you deduce from that information is done soundly.

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.

My piece of advice: Conduct your own thorough research in order to draw a conclusion worthy of being owned by you. You have to know your own capabilities and limitations, but don't let other people think for you if you can help it. There are folks with passions, and there are folks with biases, and there are outright charlatans too. Of course, there are unbiased experts. But you have to dig to make sure whatever information you gather is viable, and then you have to make sure whatever you deduce from that information is done soundly.

It seems that Cryosupernatant Plasma is not a "cure all".
In the document bellow it mentions it is not to be used as volume replacement, one of the biggest reasons for blood transfusions, especially during traumatic blood loss. 
wf-lab-apl-form-cryosupernatant-plasma.pdf
And this bit is also quite scary:
https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/190785
 
 

Yes. No doubt about that.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment."
"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him".
 

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Even academic writers usually miss some of the big things. One day. One day. 

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?

Also from this book we find this statement:
"Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot become blood donors (for those who do not share JWs’ views), even if the blood would be solely used to obtain a blood fraction or produce medicine made out of blood:"
The author cites a source for this comment, but unfortunately for him, the source is outdated and the new position has never been published by the society. So what the author states here is false.
The author quotes a 1983 publication from the society to support his statement. However, in year 2000 that position changed. But, guess what? The society has YET to publish that change in doctrinal position. I once asked Fred Rusk why the society hadn't published that JWs could donate blood for purposes of extracting permitted "fractions". He said, 'It's not something we want to talk up.' But the society did change its position on this matter beginning in year 2000.
 

Answering "why" is always difficult, and we may never have a definitively solid answer to the questions posed above.
However, in Journal of Contemporary Religion (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 133-157) professors Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone co-authored an article titled Why the Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: A Theoretical Application. Therein they posit a theoretical model of why religious movements succeed to see how well it explains growth amongst JWs. A proposition within this model may offer insight into the "why" question above.
That proposition is:
New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they maintain a medium level of tension with their surrounding environment—are strict, but not too strict.
According to Stark and Iannaccone,
Applied to the Witnesses, the issue is not whether they are sufficiently strict, but whether they aren’t too strict. Their stormy relations with outsiders, especially governments, make it clear that they are in considerable tension with their environment. The very high expectations concerning religious and missionary activity, their unbending pacifism, rejection of flag-saluting and anthem-singing, and their refusal to have blood transfusions all demonstrate considerable “strictness”. On the other hand, the Witnesses are comfortable with much of the general culture. Although they prohibit smoking, they do not prohibit drinking—and most of them do. They have no distinctive dress requirements and female Witnesses do not stint on cosmetics—publishers are expected to be nicely dressed and well-groomed, when they go calling. They do not prohibit going to sporting events, movies, plays, or watching television--although many believe this is a waste of precious time better devoted to missionary work. Consequently, it is impossible to identify a Witness, unless he or she volunteers the information. Visibility may, in fact, be the crucial factor for identifying when groups impose too much tension or strictness. [Underline added for emphasis]
If this is true, there is reason to believe the answer to the "why" question has more to do with growing a religious movement than being rational. If true, this would explain a great deal. It would, for example, explain why, to this day, not a single member of the governing body is willing to openly and publicly engage in a critical analysis of the blood doctrine they stubbornly hold to despite overwhelming evidence the doctrine is not only unsound but outright refuted. It would also explain all the society's demonstrably fallacious responses it offers in its literature addressing the subject. Then we have all the society's online die-hards, who, to the person, fail over and over again to offer any rational reasons supporting their leaders' position. They don't have this rationale because the ones they entrust with their decision-making have not offered them suitable material.
It may end up being the case that the society is running a religion business rather than a moral compass anchored on rational biblical foundation. It pains me to say it, but there it is. I've said it out loud. Of course, those of us like me know we were taught from infancy that the society's religious positions are [soundly] reasoned from the scriptures. Yet, as older, more experienced and educated adults we've learned we do not have sound reasoning that support the society's current religious position on blood. We also learned that insiders tasked to answer for this doctrine (like Fred Rusk) have utterly failed in their attempts. Over and over again they've offered false premises to underpin the doctrine.
This finding may be confirmed by the society's own publications and doctrinal evolution:
The society's own literature demonstrates that since 1945 the JW community consistently objected on sound bases to the notion that it was wrong to teach the scriptures forbid transfusion of donor blood to save life and/or health. Regardless, the society just turned up the heat on this doctrine to the point where it became a matter that could lead to a JW being disfellowshipped (excommunicated).
The doctrinal evolution of this religious position also shows a dial feature related to "personal conscience matters" and what it terms "minor fractions" that have the effect of mitigating harm to JWs whilst maintaining the overall doctrine. Over the years the society has used these doctrinal features to dial up or dial down the tension caused by its blood doctrine, again whilst still maintaining the overall doctrinal position.
The whole thing smacks of business building strategy rather than offering a sound scriptually based moral compass.

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.

Mine too. Maybe if I had the experiences you report I would feel as you do. I have had calamity in my life, but not that one.
Isn’t this your 6th or 7th mention of The Fugitive? Though there is tragedy in the world, those not immediate victims continue to go to the movies, to concerts, to plays, to read books, to surf the internet, until in Eliphaz’s words, ‘it becomes your turn.’ Maybe all such activity should end until there is no more pain, but it does not.

I am sorry you had to go through this. 
I think this must have been some time ago, and perhaps not in the US? If I'm not mistaken, with small children, and children under the age of consent, the decission about blood is taken out of the parents hands by the court, and the HLC elders will not encourage the parents to fight it but to go along with it. I was told this by a HLC elder.
With regard to children who are of the age of consent the doctors will leave the decission to them. 
Just a couple of years ago we had a young woman (she was just a few months shy of 18) in our congregation admitted to hospital with severe anemia. The doctors strongly recommend a transfusion as her numbers were dangerously low. Her father, an inactive Witness for some time, urged her to get a transfusion, but she stood her ground and refused. The doctors reluctantly cooperated with her because she was almost 18 and deemed it a waste of time to drag it through the court. Thankfully the doctors were able to bring her blood count back to normal. Today she is a healthy and happily married woman. All ended well. I think a lot of it had to do with the fad of not eating enough protein. All these young girls jump on the vegan bandwagon and the parents are not aware of just how dangerous it can be.
Of course this was a less serious case in that it was self induced anemia and not something caused by a disease. 
I do get TTH reasoning regarding the choice of treatment. Doctors cannot promise a cure, only perhaps a prolongment of life. Parents are usually given choices and of course recommendations. It is a very very difficult situation and I do not envy any parent who has to go through this. In a way I am glad the choice about blood has been taken out of the patents hands and who knows, maybe the elders on the HLC feel the same way. Certainly the elder I spoke with didn't seem to be upset by the fact....

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.

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?

It’s not actually …they have to accommodate the many many who have had very little and often no education…..if we need and want more depth well that’s up to us..they can not spoon feed us everything.
we got corrected as apparently a number were complaining about the lack of meat or depth to the studies…and they said..get used to it….but they needed to preach and teach to all sorts of men…..that’s fair enough I reckon.

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.

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.