What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 

OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.

But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.

there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 

Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.

In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:

On 11/5/2023 at 3:26 AM, Thinking said:

...there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…

That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.

- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.

- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.

Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

[Pudgy]

I have noticed, over  the years, that Christians, who for many, many reasons should have the LEAST fear of dying … seem to be terrified of dying.

What’s with that?

 

[Many Miles]

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

 

I have noticed, over  the years, that Christians, who for many, many reasons should have the LEAST fear of dying … seem to be terrified of dying.

What’s with that?

 

Facing death is typically a new experience for each person. It’s a very personal experience. It’s difficult to judge why individuals face death however they do. 

Thomas Jefferson concluded there was a purpose for old age. It prepared a person for death. That was his view, once he achieved old age. 

My paternal grandmother faced death twice.

The first time she was terrified. I mean, just terrified. She looked at me and said, “[Name], I can tell you that no matter what anyone tells you, or how many people are around you, dying is something you have to do all by yourself, and I can tell you, it’s not fun.” She survived though physicians had said her death was sure. 

The second time she was serene. She said she just wanted to close her eyes and not wake up. She was ready to face death, and she did. She died, but not in fear. 

So maybe there was something to Jefferson’s conclusion. 

 

[Thinking]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:25 AM, Many Miles said:

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.

But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.

Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.

In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:

That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.

- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.

- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.

Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .

Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..

Doctors of medicine always treat transfusion of products rendered from blood as tissue transplants because that's what it is. Of course, different tissues can represent different complications. Tissue transplantation should always come with a very considered risk-to-benefit analysis. Even when it's autogenic.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier.

Well, to be sure, red blood cells don't make oxygen, but they do transport oxygen, and carbon dioxide too.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .

The reason to offer source material allows what we say to be checked for veracity. Most, if not all, the sources I provided are probably available freely online.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

JWs surely do not abstain from using from the donor blood supply, but they hardly ever contribute to the same blood supply they accept products from. As for whether I'm right or wrong about what I've presented, I'm happy to help where and when I can. Where I'm wrong I want to know, which is one reason I'm willing to share information. So others can break it apart and analysis it for anything that might be false. We all learn from one another.

[Srecko Sostar]

As far as I have been able to understand from several videos, there is a problem in Japan regarding physical punishment of children and refusal of blood transfusions when it comes to children among JWs.

 

 

 

[Pudgy]

Those Japanese … what a sense of humor! They are inscrutable! 

[Many Miles]

19 hours ago, George88 said:

All the information one needs to truly understand can be found in Wikipedia and Google.

Because a person has a library at their disposal does not mean they understand what they're reading. Everyone needs help learning how to learn, learning what information means, and when or whether pieces of information do or do not have a relationship, and what that relationship is and potential consequences.

Both sources you cite can be useful though. And, I am a hearty advocate of reading. I'm also a hearty advocate of learning from everyone and everything around me, and I think everyone should be that way. We learn from one another.

19 hours ago, George88 said:

There's no need to strive to sound intelligent by seeking out new scientific knowledge.

I don't know that anyone here is trying to sound intelligent. It seems to me folks here are just sharing their thoughts, if they have any, on whatever the topic is.

19 hours ago, George88 said:

1. Volume - The amount of saline that can be provided. In WW2, they used coconut milk for volume.

I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. These days I don't know of any hospital that uses a product rendered from blood purely as a volume expander. What you cite of WWII is of a desperate measure for a desperate time and place. As late the the early 21st century there are also isolated reports of extremely remote medical services that have used coconut water (NOT coconut MILK!!!) as a volume expander. But this can be very dangerous because users are gambling that the osmotic pressure of whatever coconut water they use is suitable for IV administration. If it's not, the fluid will, basically, initiate a cascading event of hemolysis where erythrocytic cells explode in the peripheral blood stream. It can be lethal. Hence, anytime a medical facility has used IV administration of coconut water it's a desperate measure, and what they're really doing is gambling to buy time for access to better therapeutics. Again, though, this is unrelated to the subject of products rendered from blood.

19 hours ago, George88 said:

2. Oxygen - which can be provided artificially.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Administration of oxygen to a patient and that oxygen being sufficiently transported to organ tissues are separate things. There is such a thing as bleeding to death. Without enough erythrocytic cells to efficiently transport oxygen and carbon dioxide (alternatively) a patient's organs will shut down and they will perish.

19 hours ago, George88 said:

3. Protein - (hemoglobin) can be boosted through medication or blood transfusion. However, even with a blood transfusion, it takes several days for the bone marrow to be sufficiently stimulated to produce red blood cells.

What you write here paints a relatively correct picture. There are therapeutics that can stimulate erythrocytic production, but it takes time. As you say, it could be days. It could even be weeks for sufficient erythrocytic production rise to stabilize a patient. In the face of severe anemia, what fills the immediate gap is transfusion of red cells. These transfused cells will serve as transport for oxygen until the patient's own system can produce enough erythrocytes to do the job, and can sustain that production.

19 hours ago, George88 said:

However, none of these factors can guarantee success, and both Jewish and Gentile Christians should refrain from consuming whole blood, as stated in the scriptures.

Neither life nor health is guaranteed. Nevertheless, humans in need of medical care are looking for the best care available for whatever is their condition. And, when the question is, "What is the scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?" it adds nothing to the discussion to, essentially, simply assert 'It does!'. So far you've ignored all the logical scriptural arguments put forth in this discussion, which is why I eventually just ignored you. But another reader thought your comments above could use a response.

[Pudgy]

 

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

 

When someone “downvotes” what is obviously satire, parody or a joke, without an explanation, they invariably are oblivious to other nuanced things. 

 

[Many Miles]

40 minutes ago, George88 said:

… if the level of oxygen saturation is incomprehensible, it becomes impossible to explain to someone who appears to have a biased agenda.

What in the world is that sentence even trying to say? Lol 

[Juan Rivera]

@Many Miles I'm going over some of the comments and concerns brought out in this thread

On 2/7/2024 at 2:17 PM, Many Miles said:

And what is the following if not Judaization?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

It's not Judaization. If a Christian/Witness tries to use any of the Judaic/Mosaic law as the means to be declared righteous, he will be condemned. Being declared righteous does not come by observing laws but by Jehovah's undeserved kindness.

On 2/7/2024 at 2:17 PM, Many Miles said:

In relation to the question of using human donor blood for transfusion medicine, every bit of the answer given to the question asked demands acquiescence to Judaic law since nowhere else in holy script do we find anything remotely addressing human donor blood. There is no extra-Judaic scriptural text remotely addressing human donor blood, let alone allogenic transplantation of such blood. It was Judaistic teachers Paul warned about who insisted on invoking provisions of Judaic law that no worshiper of God outside Jews had ever been held to for their worship to be accepted by God. Cornelius was no more required to bow to demands of circumcision than he was required to bow to abstain from "any sort of blood" as required under Judaic law. Cornelius need only abstain from the sort of blood God had stipulated prior to Judaic law, namely the sort of blood spelled out to Noah after the flood, which was not human donor blood.

The explanation I see is very simple. The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant. Whatever is taken, is under its jurisdiction.  Under the New Covenant, the Congregation has the power to legislate/decide  based on the dictates of time and circumstance which doctrine and practices are most beneficial for the Christian community, leading her to incorporate various laws, although with her own modifications (Rom 13:1-10; Acts 15:28); while discarding others as useless (Col 2:16; Acts 15:10-12).  The only question remaining is whether changing the law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline is a wise thing to do. If the Congregation finds out it is not wise, she can restore them the way they were before.

The idea that the New Covenant would borrow principles from the Old should not be hard for us to understand. Take for example the relationship of the US Constitution and the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had some very beneficial insights concerning law and life. These were incorporated into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta itself became obsolete and was revoked, but whatever principles were borrowed from it, they became part of the Constitution, and it was only from the Constitution that those principles acquired legal force. In the same way, Scripture declares that the Old Covenant was legally revoked (Hebrews 7:18; 10:9) but its spiritual and moral principles were utilized in the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:16-18; Gal 5:14; 1Co 9:9; Rm 7:7-12). 

As a practical guide to life we have borrowed some ethical and worship principles from the Old Covenant. We borrowed from the Ten Commandments (although the New Covenant alters them a little to fit the Good News); we borrowed from some of the civil laws (paying just wages), and even have borrowed from some of the ceremonial laws. But whatever we borrow and practice, it is not because the Old Covenant, in whole or in part, is itself still legally valid, but because the New Covenant has the authority to incorporate any principle from the Old Covenant it wishes if it finds it helpful for Christian living. In that way, the Old Covenant laws are under the legal jurisdiction of the New Covenant, not the Old. Hence, the Congregation could legally abolish the entire Judaic/Mosaic law, but then take from the Judaic/Mosaic law those moral, civil or ceremonial principles that they saw fit for the Christian community.