Mashahidi wa yehova-changamoto iliyofichika kwa wahudumu wa afya

[Riwa]

Hili jambo ni gumu kweli kwa pande zote. Upande mmoja matakwa ya mgonjwa yanastahili kuheshimiwa sababu imani yake haikubali kuongezwa damu. Upande mwingine daktari anawekwa katika muelekeo mgumu pale anapoona mgonjwa wake ambaye pengine hana fahamu yupo taabani sababu ya upungifu wa damu !!

Labda uongozi wa hospitali ungejaribu kuwaita na kuongea na kasisi na familia kujaribu kumshawishi mama kama inawezekana. Mwisho kama yote hayawezekani nadhani matakwa ya mgonjwa yaheshimiwe.

Percival...hapo penye red ndio sahau kabisa, Kasisi hawezi ruhusu hiyo hata kwa nini. Kanisa la Sabato limeingia gharama kutengeneza ID ambazo wasabato wanatembea nazo kwenye pochi na wallet zao zikiwa na sentensi 'USINIWEKEE DAMU'. Sasa Kasisi atahalalishaje muumini awekewe wakati huo ni msimamo wa kanisa! Kinachonishangaza ni wapi chimbuko la msimamo huo...Biblia? Mstari gani? Mbona kila jumapili tunakula mkate na divai kama kiwakilishi cha mwili na damu ya Yesu alipokufa kwa ajili yetu?!

 

[thesonofafrica]

Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept medical treatment?

Yes. In fact, they seek the best possible care for themselves and their loved ones. Moreover, many Witnesses work in the medical field as nurses, paramedics, doctors, and surgeons. However, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. ‘Abstain from blood,' the Bible states. (Acts 15:28, 29) Interestingly, a growing number of physicians view nonblood medical care as the "gold standard," for through it the many health risks associated with the use of blood products are avoided.

 

[thesonofafrica]

[FONT=felix titling, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Quality Alternatives to Transfusion[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
You might feel, 'Transfusions are hazardous, but are there any high-quality alternatives?' A good question, and note the word "quality."
Everyone, including Jehovah's Witnesses, wants effective medical care of high quality. Dr. Grant E. Steffen noted two key elements: "Quality medical care is the capacity of the elements of that care to achieve legitimate medical and nonmedical goals." (The Journal of the American Medical Association, July 1, 1988) "Nonmedical goals" would include not violating the ethics or Bible-based conscience of the patient. -Acts 15:28, 29.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
"We must conclude that currently there are many patients receiving blood components who have no chance for a benefit from transfusion (the blood is not needed) and yet still have a significant risk of undesired effect. No physician would knowingly expose a patient to a therapy that cannot help but might hurt, but that is exactly what occurs when blood is transfused unnecessarily." -Transfusion-Transmitted Viral Diseases, 1987.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, the answer is yes.
Though most surgeons have claimed that they gave blood only when absolutely necessary, after the AIDS epidemic arose their use of blood dropped rapidly. An editorial in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (September 1988) said that "one of the few benefits of the epidemic" was that it "resulted in various strategies on the part of patients and physicians to avoid blood transfusion." A blood-bank official explains: "What has changed is the intensity of the message, the receptivity of clinicians to the message (because of an increased perception of risks), and the demand for consideration of alternatives." -Transfusion Medicine Reviews, October 1989.
Note, there are alternatives! This becomes understandable when we review why blood is transfused.
The hemoglobin in the red cells carries oxygen needed for good health and life. So if a person has lost a lot of blood, it might seem logical just to replace it. Normally you have about 14 or 15 grams of hemoglobin in every 100 cubic centimeters of blood. (Another measure of the concentration is hematocrit, which is commonly about 45 percent.) The accepted "rule" was to transfuse a patient before surgery if his hemoglobin was below 10 (or 30 percent hematocrit). The Swiss journal Vox Sanguinis (March 1987) reported that "65% of [anesthesiologists] required patients to have a preoperative hemoglobin of 10 gm/dl for elective surgery."
But at a 1988 conference on blood transfusion, Professor Howard L. Zauder asked, "How Did We Get a 'Magic Number'?" He stated clearly: "The etiology of the requirement that a patient have 10 grams of hemoglobin (Hgb) prior to receiving an anesthetic is cloaked in tradition, shrouded in obscurity, and unsubstantiated by clinical or experimental evidence." Imagine the many thousands of patients whose transfusions were triggered by an 'obscure, unsubstantiated' requirement!
Some might wonder, 'Why is a hemoglobin level of 14 normal if you can get by on much less?' Well, you thus have considerable reserve oxygen-carrying capacity so that you are ready for exercise or heavy work. Studies of anemic patients even reveal that "it is difficult to detect a deficit in work capacity with hemoglobin concentrations as low as 7 g/dl. Others have found evidence of only moderately impaired function." -Contemporary Transfusion Practice, 1987.
While adults accommodate a low hemoglobin level, what of children? Dr. James A. Stockman III says: "With few exceptions, infants born prematurely will experience a decline in hemoglobin in the first one to three months . . . The indications for transfusion in the nursery setting are not well defined. Indeed, many infants seem to tolerate remarkably low levels of hemoglobin concentration with no apparent clinical difficulties." -Pediatric Clinics of North America, February 1986.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
"Some authors have stated that hemoglobin values as low as 2 to 2.5 gm./100ml. may be acceptable. . . . A healthy person may tolerate a 50 percent loss of red blood cell mass and be almost entirely asymptomatic if blood loss occurs over a period of time." -Techniques of Blood Transfusion, 1982.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]Such information does not mean that nothing need be done when a person loses a lot of blood in an accident or during surgery. If the loss is rapid and great, a person's blood pressure drops, and he may go into shock. What is primarily needed is that the bleeding be stopped and the volume in his system be restored. That will serve to prevent shock and keep the remaining red cells and other components in circulation.
Volume replacement can be accomplished without using whole blood or blood plasma.* Various nonblood fluids are effective volume expanders. The simplest is saline (salt) solution, which is both inexpensive and compatible with our blood. There are also fluids with special properties, such as dextran, Haemaccel, and lactated Ringer's solution. Hetastarch (HES) is a newer volume expander, and "it can be safely recommended for those [burn] patients who object to blood products." (Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, January/February 1989) Such fluids have definite advantages. "Crystalloid solutions [such as normal saline and lactated Ringer's solution], Dextran and HES are relatively nontoxic and inexpensive, readily available, can be stored at room temperature, require no compatibility testing and are free of the risk of transfusion-transmitted disease." -Blood Transfusion Therapy -A Physician's Handbook, 1989.
You may ask, though, 'Why do nonblood replacement fluids work well, since I need red cells to get oxygen throughout my body?' As mentioned, you have oxygen-carrying reserves. If you lose blood, marvelous compensatory mechanisms start up. Your heart pumps more blood with each beat. Since the lost blood was replaced with a suitable fluid, the now diluted blood flows more easily, even in the small vessels. As a result of chemical changes, more oxygen is released to the tissues. These adaptations are so effective that if only half of your red cells remain, oxygen delivery may be about 75 percent of normal. A patient at rest uses only 25 percent of the oxygen available in his blood. And most general anesthetics reduce the body's need for oxygen.
[/FONT][FONT=felix titling, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]HOW CAN DOCTORS HELP?[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
Skilled physicians can help one who has lost blood and so has fewer red cells. Once volume is restored, doctors can administer oxygen at high concentration. This makes more of it available for the body and has often had remarkable results. British doctors used this with a woman who had lost so much blood that "her haemoglobin fell to 1.8 g/dlitre. She was successfully treated . . . [with] high inspired oxygen concentrations and transfusions of large volumes of gelatin solution [Haemaccel]." (Anaesthesia, January 1987) The report also says that others with acute blood loss have been successfully treated in hyperbaric oxygen chambers.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
The heart-lung machine has been a great help in heart surgery on patients who do not want blood[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]Physicians can also help their patients to form more red cells. How? By giving them iron-containing preparations (into muscles or veins), which can aid the body in making red cells three to four times faster than normal. Recently another help has become available. Your kidneys produce a hormone called erythropoietin (EPO), which stimulates bone marrow to form red cells. Now synthetic (recombinant) EPO is available. Doctors may give this to some anemic patients, thus helping them to form replacement red cells very quickly.
Even during surgery, skilled and conscientious surgeons and anesthesiologists can help by employing advanced blood-conservation methods. Meticulous operative technique, such as electrocautery to minimize bleeding, cannot be overstressed. Sometimes blood flowing into a wound can be aspirated, filtered, and directed back into circulation.#
Patients on a heart-lung machine primed with a nonblood fluid may benefit from the resulting hemodilution, fewer red cells being lost.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
"Older concepts about oxygen transport to tissues, wound healing, and 'nutritional value' of blood are being abandoned. Experience with patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses demonstrates that severe anemia is well tolerated." -The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, March 1989.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]And there are other ways to help. Cooling a patient to lessen his oxygen needs during surgery. Hypotensive anesthesia. Therapy to improve coagulation. Desmopressin (DDAVP) to shorten bleeding time. Laser "scalpels." You will see the list grow as physicians and concerned patients seek to avoid blood transfusions. We hope that you never lose a great amount of blood. But if you did, it is very likely that skilled doctors could manage your care without using blood transfusions, which have so many risks.
[/FONT][FONT=felix titling, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]SURGERY, YES -BUT WITHOUT TRANSFUSIONS[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
Many people today will not accept blood. For health reasons, they are requesting what Witnesses seek primarily on religious grounds: quality medical care employing alternative nonblood management. As we have noted, major surgery is still possible. If you have any lingering doubts, some other evidence from medical literature may dispel them.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
Little children too? "Forty-eight pediatric open heart surgical procedures were performed with bloodless techniques regardless of surgical complexity." The children were as small as 10.3 pounds (4.7 kg). "Because of consistent success in Jehovah's Witnesses and the fact that blood transfusion carries a risk of serious complications, we are currently performing most of our pediatric cardiac operations without transfusion." -Circulation, September 1984.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]The article "Quadruple Major Joint Replacement in Member of Jehovah's Witnesses" (Orthopaedic Review, August 1986) told of an anemic patient with "advanced destruction in both knees and hips." Iron dextran was employed before and after the staged surgery, which was successful. The British Journal of Anaesthesia (1982) reported on a 52-year-old Witness with a hemoglobin level under 10. With the use of hypotensive anesthesia to minimize blood loss, she had a total hip and shoulder replacement. A surgical team at the University of Arkansas (U.S.A.) also used this method in a hundred hip replacements on Witnesses, and all the patients recovered. The professor heading the department comments: "What we have learned from those (Witness) patients, we now apply to all our patients that we do total hips on."
The conscience of some Witnesses permits them to accept organ transplants if done without blood. A report of 13 kidney transplants concluded: "The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah's Witnesses." (Transplantation, June 1988) Likewise, refusal of blood has not stood in the way even of successful heart transplants.
'What about bloodless surgery of other types?' you may wonder. Medical Hotline (April/May 1983) told of surgery on "Jehovah's Witnesses who underwent major gynecological and obstetric operations [at Wayne State University, U.S.A.] without blood transfusions." The newsletter reported: "There were no more deaths and complications than in women who had undergone similar operations with blood transfusions." The newsletter then commented: "The results of this study may warrant a fresh look at the use of blood for all women undergoing obstetric and gynecological operations."
At the hospital of Göttingen University (Germany), 30 patients who declined blood underwent general surgery. "No complications arose that could not also have arisen with patients who accept blood transfusions. . . . That recourse to a transfusion is not possible should not be overrated, and thus should not lead to refraining from an operation that is necessary and surgically justifiable." -Risiko in der Chirurgie, 1987.
Even brain surgery without using blood has been done on numerous adults and children, for instance, at New York University Medical Center. In 1989 Dr. Joseph Ransohoff, head of neurosurgery, wrote: "It is very clear that in most instances avoidance of blood products can be achieved with minimal risk in patients who have religious tenets against the use of these products, particularly if surgery can be carried out expeditiously and with a relatively short operative period. Of considerable interest is the fact that I often forget that the patient is a Witness until at the time of discharge when they thank me for having respected their religious beliefs."
Finally, can intricate heart and vascular surgery without blood be performed on adults and children? Dr. Denton A. Cooley was a pioneer in doing just that. As you can see in the medical article reprinted in the Appendix, on pages 27-9, based on an earlier analysis, Dr. Cooley's conclusion was "that the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah's Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others." Now, after performing 1,106 of these operations, he writes: "In every instance my agreement or contract with the patient is maintained," that is, to use no blood.
Surgeons have observed that good attitude is another factor with Jehovah's Witnesses. "The attitude of these patients has been exemplary," wrote Dr. Cooley in October 1989. "They do not have the fear of complications or even death that most patients have. They have a deep and abiding faith in their belief and in their God."
This does not mean that they assert a right to die. They actively pursue quality care because they want to get well. They are convinced that obeying God's law on blood is wise, which view has a positive influence in nonblood surgery.
Professor Dr. V. Schlosser, of the surgical hospital at the University of Freiburg (Germany), noted: "Among this group of patients, the incidence of bleeding during the perioperative period was not higher; the complications were, if anything, fewer. The special view of illness, typical of Jehovah's Witnesses, had a positive influence in the perioperative process." -Herz Kreislauf, August 1987.
[/FONT]

 

[thesonofafrica]

IS HIV-SCREENED
BLOOD SAFE?

THIS question came to the fore in Nigeria when it was found that a baby girl was infected with HIV through a blood transfusion she received at one of Nigeria's leading hospitals.

According to the hospital's medical director, soon after Eniola's birth, she was found to be jaundiced. An exchange blood transfusion was prescribed, and the father donated some units of blood. But the father's blood was found to be incompatible, so blood from the hospital's blood bank was administered. Before long, the baby tested positive for HIV, though both parents tested negative. According to the hospital, "the blood transfused into the baby was screened and found to be HIV-negative at the time it was transfused into the baby."

How, then, did the baby get infected? The Nigerian government investigated the controversy and concluded that the likely source of the infection was the transfused blood. The Nigerian Tribune newspaper quoted a virologist as saying: "At the time of donating the blood, the donor was at the window period of HIV infection."

This is but a single case, yet it highlights the fact that blood transfusions are not risk free. Describing the HIV window period, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: "It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the ‘window period'. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. . . . In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months."
So, the fact that blood has been screened for HIV is no guarantee that it is safe. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation warns: "Although HIV may not be detected by a test during the window period, HIV can be transmitted during that time. In fact, individuals are often most infectious during this time (shortly after they have been exposed to HIV)."

Jehovah's Witnesses have long followed the Bible's direction to "keep abstaining from . . . blood." The protection this has afforded them underscores the wisdom of obeying God's instructions.

 

[thesonofafrica]

[FONT=ms sans serif, geneva, arial, helvetica, sans serif]How Can Blood Save Your Life?[/FONT]
[FONT=felix titling, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Blood-Vital For Life[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
How can blood save your life? This no doubt is of interest to you because blood is linked to your life. Blood carries oxygen through your body, removes carbon dioxide, helps you adapt to temperature changes, and aids in your fight against disease.

The linkage of life to blood was made long before William Harvey mapped the circulatory system in 1628. The basic ethics of major religions focus on a Life-Giver, who expressed himself about life and about blood. A Judeo-Christian lawyer said of him: "He himself gives to all persons life and breath and all things. For by him we have life and move and exist."*
People who believe in such a Life-Giver trust that his directions are for our lasting good. A Hebrew prophet described him as "the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk."
That assurance, at Isaiah 48:17, is part of the Bible, a book respected for ethical values that can benefit all of us. What does it say about human use of blood? Does it show how lives can be saved with blood? Actually, the Bible shows clearly that blood is more than a complex biologic fluid. It mentions blood over 400 times, and some of these references involve the saving of life.
In one early reference, the Creator declared: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. . . . But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." He added: "For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting," and he then condemned murder. (Genesis 9:3-6, New International Version) He said that to Noah, a common ancestor highly esteemed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. All humanity was thus notified that in the Creator's view, blood stands for life. This was more than a dietary regulation. Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood.
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
"The precepts hereby set down in a precise and methodical manner [in Acts 15] are qualified as indispensable, giving the strongest proof that in the apostles' minds this was not a temporary arrangement, or a provisional measure."-Professor Édouard Reuss, University of Strasbourg.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
He again referred to blood when he gave the Law code to ancient Israel. While many people respect the wisdom and ethics in that code, few are aware of its serious laws on blood. For instance: "If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:10, 11, Tanakh) God then explained what a hunter was to do with a dead animal: "He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. . . . You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off."-Leviticus 17:13, 14, Ta.
Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. It required, for example, that excrement be deposited outside the camp and covered and that people not eat meat that carried a high risk of disease. (Leviticus 11:4-8, 13; 17:15; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]At a historic council, the Christian governing body confirmed that God's law on blood is still binding
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life. "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right."-Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25.#
Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and "fell to eating along with the blood." In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.
[/FONT][FONT=felix titling, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]BLOOD AND TRUE CHRISTIANS[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
Where does Christianity stand on the question of saving human life with blood?
Jesus was a man of integrity, which is why he is so highly regarded. He knew that the Creator said that taking in blood was wrong and that this law was binding. Hence, there is good reason to believe that Jesus would uphold the law about blood even if he was under pressure to do otherwise. Jesus "did no wrong, [and] no treachery was found on his lips." (1 Peter 2:22, Knox) He thus set a pattern for his followers, including a pattern of respect for life and blood. (We will later consider how Jesus' own blood is involved in this vital matter affecting your life.)
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]

Martin Luther pointed to the implications of the apostolic decree: "Now if we want to have a church that conforms to this council, . . . we must teach and insist that henceforth no prince, lord, burgher, or peasant eat geese, doe, stag, or pork cooked in blood . . . And burghers and peasants must abstain especially from red sausage and blood sausage."
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]Note what happened when, years after Jesus' death, a question arose about whether someone becoming a Christian had to keep all of Israel's laws. This was discussed at a council of the Christian governing body, which included the apostles. Jesus' half brother James referred to writings containing the commands about blood stated to Noah and to the nation of Israel. Would such be binding on Christians?-Acts 15:1-21.
That council sent their decision to all congregations: Christians need not keep the code given to Moses, but it is "necessary" for them to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [unbled meat] and from fornication." (Acts 15:22-29) The apostles were not presenting a mere ritual or dietary ordinance. The decree set out fundamental ethical norms, which early Christians complied with. About a decade later they acknowledged that they should still "keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood . . . and from fornication."-Acts 21:25.
You know that millions of people attend churches. Most of them would probably agree that Christian ethics involve not giving worship to idols and not sharing in gross immorality. However, it is worth our noting that the apostles put avoiding blood on the same high moral level as avoiding those wrongs. Their decree concluded: "If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!"-Acts 15:29.
The apostolic decree was long understood as binding. Eusebius tells of a young woman near the end of the second century who, before dying under torture, made the point that Christians "are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals." She was not exercising a right to die. She wanted to live, but she would not compromise her principles. Do you not respect those who put principle above personal gain?
Scientist Joseph Priestley concluded: "The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity . . . If we interpret [the] prohibition of the apostles by the practice of the primitive Christians, who can hardly be supposed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries."
[/FONT][FONT=felix titling, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]WHAT OF USING BLOOD AS MEDICINE?[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
Would the Biblical prohibition on blood cover medical uses, such as transfusions, which certainly were not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles?
While modern therapy employing blood did not exist back then, medicinal use of blood is not modern. For some 2,000 years, in Egypt and elsewhere, human "blood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy." A physician revealed the therapy given to King Esar-haddon's son when the nation of Assyria was on the leading edge of technology: "[The prince] is doing much better; the king, my lord, can be happy. Starting with the 22nd day I give (him) blood to drink, he will drink (it) for 3 days. For 3 more days I shall give (him blood) for internal application." Esar-haddon had dealings with the Israelites. Yet, because the Israelites had God's Law, they would never drink blood as medicine.
Was blood used as medicine in Roman times? The naturalist Pliny (a contemporary of the apostles) and the second-century physician Aretaeus report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. Tertullian later wrote: "Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy." He contrasted them with Christians, who "do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them." So, early Christians would risk death rather than take in blood.
"Blood in its more everyday form did not . . . go out of fashion as an ingredient in medicine and magic," reports the book Flesh and Blood. "In 1483, for example, Louis XI of France was dying. 'Every day he grew worse, and the medicines profited him nothing, though of a strange character; for he vehemently hoped to recover by the human blood which he took and swallowed from certain children.'"
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
"God and men view things in very different lights. What appears important in our eye is very often of no account in the estimation of infinite wisdom; and what appears trifling to us is often of very great importance with God. It was so from the beginning."-An Enquiry Into the Lawfulness of Eating Blood, Alexander Pirie, 1787.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]What of transfusing blood? Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: 'Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.'
Hence, thinking people in past centuries realized that the Biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it did to taking it into the mouth. Bartholin concluded: "Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored."
This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.
Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, tahoma, ms sans serif, arial]
* Paul, at Acts 17:25, 28, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. # Similar prohibitions were later written in the Qur´an. [/FONT]

 

[HAZOLE]

Religion is an opium of the people. Maana yake dini ni kama bangi imchanganyayo mtu na hawezi kutafakari kwa akili yake. Lol mnashida wana wa adamu muaminio. Wengine watachomwa kwa kuzini, kuongopa, kuiba, uasherati, wivu nk. Lakini mimi nitachomwa kwa kutoamini chochote.
Sina definition ya "imani"

So lets wait mwisho wa dunia huo.

 

[JIWE2]

Pamoja na suala la imani lazima ieleweke kwamba damu ni tishu na kutia damu ni sawa na kufanya "tishue inplant" ambayo lazima iwe na comlications. Kitaalam hakuna damu ya mtu inayofanana kabisa kabisa na ya mwingine ingawa zinaweza kuwa group moja. kwasababu hizo watu wengi wanakufa kwasababu ya kutiwa damu mishipani ingawa madaktari wengi wnafunika hilo tatizo.Isitoshe vijidudu vya magonjwa mengi kama UKIMWI vina "incubation period" kiasi kwamba vinaweza visigunduliwe wakati wa utoaji damu. Hata hivyo kuna solutions zinazoweza kutumika badala ya damu na vina matokeo mazuri kwa wagonjwa na bado hazina after effects kama vile damu. Zipo mbinu nyingine kama vile uzimuaji wa damu yani "hemodillusion", uokoaji wa damu "blood salvage'" na nyingine nyingi ambazo zinaweza kupatikana hata kwenye hospitali zetu za kawaida hapa tanzania. Kwa msaada pata video za njia mbadala za utiaji damu kwenye tovuti www.jw-media.org na broshua Damu- je inaweza kuokoa uhai? kwenye tovuti www.watchtower.org/publications .

 

[Edylux]

Suala la kutia damu mshipani ni la kisheria. Ndo maana madaktari huwataka wagonjwa au ndugu zao lisaini waraka _wa kisheria_ ili kumuondolea hatia daktari endapo mgonjwa atakufa. Hakuna daktari mwenye uhakika 100% kwamba matibabu anayompa mgonjwa baada ya kumuongeza damu yatamponyesha. Ndio maana wagonjwa wengi wanakufa pamoja na kuongezewa damu.

Wala daktari/kasisi/mwanasiasa hawapaswi kutumia imani zao katika kuamua namna ya kumtibu mgonjwa. Mgonjwa ana uamuzi wa mwisho kuhusu mustakabali wa maisha yake; Uhai wake ni zawadi yake binafsi aliopewa na mwenyezi Mungu. La sivyo madaktari wawajibike kwa vifo vyote vinavyotokea baada ya huduma yao.

Wakati huu kuna njia bora sana za kushughulikia matatizo ya damu na madaktari wengi wanapenda kufanya upasuaji wa bila damu hata kama mgonjwa ameishiwa damu kabisa.

Wizara ichangamke kuziweka mbinu hizi mpya kwenye mitaala yake, ili madaktari/wauguzi wake waende na wakati.

Damu _yoyoye_ ni takatifu, na haipasi kuliwa kwa namna yoyote ile kama; ya kisusio, mgando, keki, mshipani, vidonge nk.

Ahsanteni

 

[mchillo]

yes, mie nitafanya hivyo na sitakuwa na kovu kwa sababu ni uamuzi wake (sahihi according to his/her beliefs) na ndivyo inavyotakiwa. suppose unamlazimisha kumtia damu na akafa vilevile (maana yake anakufa kabla ya kupata fursa ya kutubu - kama anavyosuggest Uda) inakuwa umem-lostisha sio? (according to yeye, na nduguze, ama na jehova witness wenzake).

Mimi naamini huu siwakati wa kuendekeza imanipotofu kama hizo ambapo eti tunatakiwa kukubaliana na mtu anayetoauamuzi unaopingana na sheria mama ya nchi yaani Katiba. katiba ya nchi hii inaheshimu uhai na inaharamisha mtu kuua na hata kujiua, wanaoshauri eti tukubaliane na watu wanaoamua hivyo wajue kwamba inakuwa sawasawa na kumridhia mtu anayetaka kuyaondoa maisha yake yaani kujiua.

Nawafahamu sana Jehovah Witness na naelewa kwamba hili la kukataa kuongezewa damu ni moja tu kati ya vipengele kadhaa vyenye utata na ndiyo maana dhehebu hili limepambana na serikalikadhaa ulimwenguni likiambulia kupigwa marufuku sehemu kadhaa. Katika uhai wangu nimewahi kushuhudia mivutano ikizuka baina ya serikali na jamaa hawa kama katika suala la kuzuia watoto wasihudhurie shule, kukatazwa kuimba wimbo wa taifa na vipengele kibao vinavyopingana na jamii ya kawaida.

 

[chante]

kijana mmoja hapa mtaani alikuwa anaumwa(at 23 yrs)..thursday may 26 baada ya vipimo ikajulikana ana upungufu wa damu thus inabdi aongezwe!wakati yupo kwenye final stages ili awekewe damu baba yake ambaye ni shahid wa yehova akaingilia kati mtoto wake na hakuwekewa damu kwa sababu za kiimani..,jana j3 tar 30 may,mgonjwa kafariki kwa upungufu wa damu na leo tar 31 kazikwa hapa kihesa,iringa! huyo sasa ni mtoto wa pili wa huyu mzee kufariki kutokana na hili tatizo la kukataa watoto wake wasiwekewe damu,achilia mbali mke wake na mjukuu ambaye na alkumbwa na hayo masahibu!

KILICHOTEKEA MSIBANI/MAZISHI
kwa vile vijana(hata wazee) walhuzunika na kifo cha mwenzao walikwazika na kitendo cha baba wa marehemu kuzuia bloodtransfusion ilienda hivi!

1) jana hawakuhudhuria/kukesha msibani
2)leo 31/5 wakati wa mazish wao ndo wali take over shughul nzima wakamwuru baba wa marehemu afanye haya pale makaburini! i)aruhusu mwili wa marehemu uagwe (dini yao hawaruhusu kutoa last respect) km angekataa angeachiwa amzike peke yake, na kweli raia wakatoa last respect
ii)atoe maelezo kwa nini alikataa bloodtransfusion kwa mwanawe, akashndwa jibu
iii) achapwe viboko kumi au aingie kaburini na kushusha mwili na kufanya kama atakavyoamriwa ,kitu alchokifanya licha ya utu uzima wake na suit alovaa!

KILICHONISHANGAZA
Hakuna hata kiongozi wa dini yake ya mashahidi wa yehova hata hao wazungu waanzilish wa iyo dini ambao daily wanazunguka mitaani kutoa vitabu/vipeperushi hawakuoneka ktk msiba wa muumini wao,HII INA MAANA GANI?

Mungu ibariki tanzania,africa &dunia!

 

[Dr.Chichi]

Cha kufanya ni kutoa councelling na unamueleza benefit na madhara ya maamuzi yake,alafu mwisho tunamwambia aandike kwenye file lake na kusign

 

[Riwa]

Cha kufanya ni kutoa councelling na unamueleza benefit na madhara ya maamuzi yake,alafu mwisho tunamwambia aandike kwenye file lake na kusign

Dr...lakini hata akisign, haikufanyi wewe kama mtoa huduma ya afya kuwa 'comfortable' kwa risk anayochukua. Akikufia bado utajisikia vibaya na utajiona umefail!

 

[golwebo_mkuu]

Damn them religions

 

[Jackbauer]

Cha kufanya ni kutoa councelling na unamueleza benefit na madhara ya maamuzi yake,alafu mwisho tunamwambia aandike kwenye file lake na kusign

Mkuu hii sio rahisi kama unavyoisema. Nadhani ni muhimu kukawa na guidline inayoelekeza nini cha kufanya kwenye situation kama hizi. Muhimu ni ushirikishwaji wa wadau mbalimbali katika kutengeneza guideline hiyo.

 

[Jackbauer]

Wakati huu kuna njia bora sana za kushughulikia matatizo ya damu na madaktari wengi wanapenda kufanya upasuaji wa bila damu hata kama mgonjwa ameishiwa damu kabisa.

Wizara ichangamke kuziweka mbinu hizi mpya kwenye mitaala yake, ili madaktari/wauguzi wake waende na wakati.

Mkuu unachokisema kwa sasa kinawezekana ughaibuni pekee na im sure itachukua miongo zaidi ya hamsini kufika Muhimbili halafu miongo hamsini mingine kufika hospitali za mikoa na baadaye hospitali za wilaya. Kwa uzoefu wangu most of emergencies are handled at peripheral health facilities(district hospital or health centres) before taken to referal hospitals for specialised care, jaribu kuliangalia hili suala from practical point of view. Kwa sasa nini kifanyike huko hospitali za vijijini kuokoa roho za watu haswa kina mama?

 

[Jackbauer]

Pamoja na suala la imani lazima ieleweke kwamba damu ni tishu na kutia damu ni sawa na kufanya "tishue inplant" ambayo lazima iwe na comlications. Kitaalam hakuna damu ya mtu inayofanana kabisa kabisa na ya mwingine ingawa zinaweza kuwa group moja. kwasababu hizo watu wengi wanakufa kwasababu ya kutiwa damu mishipani ingawa madaktari wengi wnafunika hilo tatizo.Isitoshe vijidudu vya magonjwa mengi kama UKIMWI vina "incubation period" kiasi kwamba vinaweza visigunduliwe wakati wa utoaji damu. Hata hivyo kuna solutions zinazoweza kutumika badala ya damu na vina matokeo mazuri kwa wagonjwa na bado hazina after effects kama vile damu. Zipo mbinu nyingine kama vile uzimuaji wa damu yani "hemodillusion", uokoaji wa damu "blood salvage'" na nyingine nyingi ambazo zinaweza kupatikana hata kwenye hospitali zetu za kawaida hapa tanzania. Kwa msaada pata video za njia mbadala za utiaji damu kwenye tovuti www.jw-media.org na broshua Damu- je inaweza kuokoa uhai? kwenye tovuti www.watchtower.org/publications .

Mkuu una uhakika hizi njia zinapatikana mahospitalini mwetu?

 

[Dr.Chichi]

Guideline sidhani kama zipo ila nakumbuka wakati tunasoma forensic medicine tulipewa hilo swali kwenye pepa.. End of the day its the patient mwenye final say kwenye masuala ya mwili wake. Kama tunaona maamuzi yake hajayatoa akiwa na akili timamu then ndugu wa karibu anahusika kwenye maamuzi. Ila kawaida protocol ni kwamba aandike kwenye file hili kuondoa lawama kwetu

 

[Dr.Chichi]

Jiwe hapo umekosea, ni kweli kuna watu damu inawakataa(transfusion reaction) so tunapotoa damu tunakuwa waangalifu sana, inapoanza kureact tunaisimamisha hapo hapo.. hizo za hemodilution sio mbadala wa damu ila unampa mgonjwa wakati unasubiria damu kutoka maabara.

 

[Jackbauer]

Nilitarajia waziri wa afya anapotoa hotuba yake angegusia changamoto kama hizi na sio kutoa shutuma zisizokuwa na uthibitisho.

 

[Roulette]

Nadhani imani inatakiwa waiheshim. Mbona waislam hatunywi pombe wakati inajulikana ka glass ka wine sio kabaya kwa afya? Sababu ya Imani. Ukifa katika hali ya kuheshim imani yako unaamini kwenda peponi.

Nadhani hawa jamaa wanatakiwa wapange internaly measures za kuwasaidia watu wao. Wanaweza kua na trust funds, specialized centers in all regions na ma alternatives zote za blood transfert. Itatake time kidogo ila wakianza le watafika tu.

Pia wafanye sensitization ya nguvu kuwaelimisha mashahidi wa Jehovah wote ni chakula gani wanatakiwa kula kwa kuhakikisha hawa develop upungufu wa damu mara kwa mara. Wake zao wakiwa wazito wahakikishe wanakunywa iron tablets na maybe 3 to 7 days kabla ya siku zao za kuzaa wakae hospitali kabisa. In case of emergency wasipoteze damu nyingi.
Huo ni mtazamo wangu tu