Originally posted by galveston75In a military situation blood for transfusion may not be available. It is a logical move for the US Army medical corp (or whatever they call it) to get some training in how to do it. That there are circumstances where surgery may have to be performed without blood available does not justify the Jehovah's Witnesses hard line on the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w
Bloodless hospital told to teach army doctors how to do bloodless surgery.
4 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtit not only justifies it it provides empirical evidence for it, what is it about it reduces the risk of infection, it reduces the risk of complications, reduces stay in hospital and saves lives and money that you are having trouble with?
In a military situation blood for transfusion may not be available. It is a logical move for the US Army medical corp (or whatever they call it) to get some training in how to do it. That there are circumstances where surgery may have to be performed without blood available does not justify the Jehovah's Witnesses hard line on the matter.
5 edits
-Removed-can you tell us how after watching the video you think that he or it is suggesting and I quote 'that blood carries,'the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor', because try as I might i cannot find a single reference on the video which suggests and I quote that 'blood, carries the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor'. Nor can I find a single reference in Glavestons post which suggests that. Where has he or the content that he has posted suggested 'that blood carries, the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor',
Originally posted by galveston75Indeed, a most excellent video but it seems that despite the technology some people may need to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w
Bloodless hospital told to teach army doctors how to do bloodless surgery.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave galveston75's views on blood and "sexual urges, addictions and sins" changed then? Is this thread not about avoiding blood transfusions? Are his views about blood off topic?
...i cannot find a single reference on the video which suggests and I quote that 'blood, carries the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor'. Nor can I find a single reference in Glavestons post which suggests that.
-Removed-you were asked how after watching the video and reading the OPs remarks why you think he (the OP) was suggesting and I quote, ' that blood is bad and carries the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor'. You will tell us how after watching the presentation and reading the OP comments that you think that he was suggesting, 'that blood is bad and carries the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor' - thank you, second time asking.
2 edits
-Removed-yes so tell us what reference you have which led you to believe that he was suggesting that 'blood is bad and carries the sexual urges, addictions and sins of the donor' You are responding but you seem incapable of actually answering the question. Did you simply make it up?