Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the BU jornal study was missing though there was info on main article--Greyfox 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] cow vs. bovine
The use of scientifically or otherwise academically accurate words, such as "bovine" as opposed to "cow", is common professional practice, and more accurate in this case, as it expands the idea from common dairy cattle to other creatures that are in the Bovinae subfamily, specifically, 24 species in 9 genae. If there is a desire to define "bovine", why not wikilink it? - CobaltBlueTony 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should do it. Dfrg.msc 
02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critical view paragraphs
I have removed the paragraphs for the following reasons:
1. The paragraphs try to argue a JW POV.
2. The paragraphs do not belong in a section labeled "Critical Views". "Critical Views" are for critical views, not supportive ones (obviously!).
3. The statements starting with "some believe" or similar are unreferenced.
4. The paragraphs are unencyclopaedic in tone.
How many reasons do you need? Each one of these reasons is sufficent in and of itself to warrant the removal of the paragraphs. The fact that they may have been there for some time does not automatically make them acceptable. BenC7 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
JW points should be presented! That is what this is all about, just make it clear as the article did that it is in fact a JW point of view. While it could be questionable to put it into a section of critical views, it should also be balance with the jw view. there is nothing wrong with addded their view. the page on controveys is (although now one sided) is full of both jw views and critcs. I will restor once again. Johanneum 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent peer-reviewed article
I recently ran across a couple quotes that seem relevant to this article: "This report adds to the growing body of evidence that careful techniques and planning can result in successful major surgery in the JW [Jehovah's Witness] population." "With ongoing blood product shortages, uncertainties regarding the immunologic benefit-risk ratio of transfusion in cancer patients and overall cost issues, application of these perioperative blood saving maneuvers should be considered regardless of the patient's willingness to prevent transfusion." -- from Magner, David; Ouellette, James R.; Lee, Joseph R.; Colquhoun, Steven; Lo, Simon; Nissen, Nicholas N.. "Pancreaticoduodenectomy After Neoadjuvant Therapy in a Jehovah's Witness with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Case Report and Approach to Avoid Transfusion." American Surgeon, May2006, Vol. 72 Issue 5, p435-437
I am unsure where to add this into the main article, but I post it here for whomever wishes to incorporate it. --Microbiojen 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Watchtower
- Furthermore, Jehovah’s Witnesses have accepted blood transfusions contrary to Watchtower doctrine, even when this was under threat of severe organized shunning enforced by the Watchtower.
I'm a bit confused about the above statement. the Watctower is just a magazine albeit one that appears to dictate doctrine. However how does a magazine enforced organised shunning? Do you mean the magazine is telling people they are required to show people who receive blood donations or even lists names of people who should shunned? Nil Einne 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I don't get it
The fact that some JW's "give in" to accepting blood treatment when facing severe illnesses, does not mean that these proclaim or believe blood transfusions are right. That would've made them eager to promote their disagreement, or their leaving the congregation afterwards. By the way, the references are only to a letters from a couple of persons, and a small study (with far less than 100 patients). Why the article should spend the 6-7 first paragraphs on explaining how a "significant" part of the JWs are "against" the official doctrine of rejecting blood transfusions, is clearly a POV. It should be limited toone paragraph at the end of the article at the most, under something called "criticism" or the like. If you run a survey and ask 1,000 I'm quite certain 998-999 of us (yes, I'm one to) will answer that they respect the Society's view in this.
I suggest the article should go directly to what it is all about: JWs and blood transfusions. -Robbie Amund
