[LiverpoolJane]

I don't see the two as the same. When it comes to blood transfusions I use the precident from the Bible when it tells us about three of Gods servants who were the kings court officials. They would serve the kings delacacies but wouldn't eat them themselves because they contained blood. I would not have a BT myself but if I have to "serve the kings delacacies" to those who choose to, I would as part of my job. I wouldn't apply for a job in the blood transfusion service but I accept that on occasions I may have to look after a pt having a BT. I wouldn't smoke - or apply for a job at a cigarette factory - but if I worked in certain establisments I might have to serve somebody with cigarettes.
I don't gamble but may work in a hotel which had slot machines or a casino.
I can see you may not understand this explanation but at the end of the day I have a clear conscience about this - again I will say I would rather not have to but - that's life!
Jane

Originally Posted by psychnurse1998

Jane , I admire the stand JW's take on war. I was a Seventh day advenstist. We were concientious objectors. We did everything but shoot the gun. JW's would have nothing at all to do with war. I sense an inconsistency..you hand the whole blood, or bullet to someone else to do it for you.

[psychnurse1998]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolJane

Hi,

I would just like to clarify that I am a JW as well as a RN and I cannot refuse to give a blood transfusion.
I would also like to say that I have seen a few people exsanguinate despite having massive blood transfusions. So is it really possible to say a person died because they didn't have a BT when even those that do still die?
As regards JW only hospitals - a better idea is something that you already have in the US - bloodless hospitals that treat anyone who would would rather not have a BT. I would recommend you have a look at some of the websites as it is really interesting and I'm sure most people if asked would say they would prefare not to have a BT if possible? The technology available these days is enabling all of us to have a safer alternative to blood transfusions.
Several hospitals local to me have accepted equipment donated by JWs that are being used for the benefit of all it's patients and reducing the need for transfusions. The surgeons have been receptive to new techniques and are more confident in treating more and more people without transfusions and now treating JWs is not something they fear.

you raise a good point, I believe statistics show most people die from med errors than any other single cause. with or without blood.. someone might argue do 2 med errors make a right..

[lorilou22RN]

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">as I stated before I respect the rights to not receive Transfusions, yet I personally do not like taking care of JW's because of the limitations in care. It is all well and good to have facilities that are going to more alternatives vs giving blood, but those places are few and far between. Definately not at my facility. If those places are available well...JW's need to go there, not back me in a corner during care.

PS that tidbit about hyperbaric chamber was very interesting.
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[psychnurse1998]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolJane

I don't see the two as the same. When it comes to blood transfusions I use the precident from the Bible when it tells us about three of Gods servants who were the kings court officials. They would serve the kings delacacies but wouldn't eat them themselves because they contained blood. I would not have a BT myself but if I have to "serve the kings delacacies" to those who choose to, I would as part of my job. I wouldn't apply for a job in the blood transfusion service but I accept that on occasions I may have to look after a pt having a BT. I wouldn't smoke - or apply for a job at a cigarette factory - but if I worked in certain establisments I might have to serve somebody with cigarettes.
I don't gamble but may work in a hotel which had slot machines or a casino.
I can see you may not understand this explanation but at the end of the day I have a clear conscience about this - again I will say I would rather not have to but - that's life!
Jane

"Gods servants who were the kings court officials. They would serve the kings delacacies but wouldn't eat them themselves because they contained blood"....My king James says Daniel would not eat "MEAT", he prefered a "pulse" diet..i take that as vegetarian...but I guess we dont want to get into theology here.But King James does not mention BLOOD..it mentions MEAT.. you come to your own conclusions.

[siggie13]

My worse experience with a JW patient was a mother of 5 children, all under the age of 7, who came in bleeding from an ectopic pregnancy and had to have surgery. Her hematocrit dropped to 6 and she refused any blood products. She was with us for over 3 weeks, lying in bed, getting total care since she was too weak to do anything on her own. When her crit got to over 12, we send her home with her family and I hope she did well. The staff, although having trouble understanding why she would risk leaving her children, were very supportive of her choice and faith and worked hard to help her survive. I can't fault someone who has that much faith and conviction.

[EMTastic]

Originally Posted by psychnurse1998

"Gods servants who were the kings court officials. They would serve the kings delacacies but wouldn't eat them themselves because they contained blood"....My king James says Daniel would not eat "MEAT", he prefered a "pulse" diet..i take that as vegetarian...but I guess we dont want to get into theology here.But King James does not mention BLOOD..it mentions MEAT.. you come to your own conclusions.

By "blood" they definitely mean meat/ pusle diet, which is Jewish practice. I don't think that was important in this exerpt, though, but the lesson behind the story: Do your job the way you were taught. Allow them their choice, but don't jeopardize your own faith. It's about religious tolerance, I think?

[psychnurse1998]

Originally Posted by EMTastic

By "blood" they definitely mean meat/ pusle diet, which is Jewish practice. I don't think that was important in this exerpt, though, but the lesson behind the story: Do your job the way you were taught. Allow them their choice, but don't jeopardize your own faith. It's about religious tolerance, I think?

I wonder, is the line between religious tolerance and protecting the interest of children contridictory?,because even law enforcement have to intervene in some cases.? I am thinking of a dad, that was not feeding his children to help the church several years back. Or parents from one denomination that dont believe in medical care. What is our responsiblity as nurses , to advocate the scientific method? to teach where there is a knowledge deficit? I am inclined to believe it may be to remain silent under the current basis of nursing. I am glad at least , JW accept medical care in general., and as some have pointed out..even donate to some hospitals. I guess medicine has progressed...in the past blood letting was a medical intervention for some diseases.

[EMTastic]

I meant that this is the interpretation of the passage to a JW employee exclusively. This parable tells a JW that (in context) if they are a nurse, give people blood.

My attitude a JW patient, well, I abhor the practice, plain and simple. Before pulling the religious freedom card, I could care less if you are a JW. I have complete disgust anybody of refusing to give a child a blood transfusion. Originally wasn't going to comment on it, only because their is nothing I can say that would change that. It's like scientology and psychiatry/"detoxing"... Children don't have the ability to choose their religion. What if a child gets a transfusion because it is an emergent situation and he's a complete John Doe? Then afterwards, the parents are found and are outraged. Will the child grow up and think he is damned? Or will he grow up and be thankful his parents weren't there to prevent him from living?
I'd better shut up before I go on rant and anger someone.

[psychnurse1998]

Originally Posted by EMTastic

I meant that this is the interpretation of the passage to a JW employee exclusively. This parable tells a JW that (in context) if they are a nurse, give people blood.

My attitude a JW patient, well, I abhor the practice, plain and simple. Before pulling the religious freedom card, I could care less if you are a JW. I have complete disgust anybody of refusing to give a child a blood transfusion. Originally wasn't going to comment on it, only because their is nothing I can say that would change that. It's like scientology and psychiatry/"detoxing"... Children don't have the ability to choose their religion. What if a child gets a transfusion because it is an emergent situation and he's a complete John Doe? Then afterwards, the parents are found and are outraged. Will the child grow up and think he is damned? Or will he grow up and be thankful his parents weren't there to prevent him from living?
I'd better shut up before I go on rant and anger someone.

My philosophy on parenting goes opposite most parents, or of our society. I think parenting, like driving, should be a privilege not a right. Like, Driving parenting should require a parenting license, showing proof you had a parenting class, at least something comparable to a cpr class..at minimum. I pay taxes for childrens services, and i dont mind, I just consider myself a sort of surrugate parent, with say ast o what happens to children of whatever philospophy their parents happen to be. One word describes reproduction in our society..ANARCHY.

[LiverpoolJane]

He wasn't a vegetarian (Ch 10:3) so the only reason he would refuse to eat the food (and risk offending a tyrant king) was because it was polluted in some way.

Originally Posted by psychnurse1998

"Gods servants who were the kings court officials. They would serve the kings delacacies but wouldn't eat them themselves because they contained blood"....My king James says Daniel would not eat "MEAT", he prefered a "pulse" diet..i take that as vegetarian...but I guess we dont want to get into theology here.But King James does not mention BLOOD..it mentions MEAT.. you come to your own conclusions.