If cryosupernatant is plasma and Witnesses can transfuse it, is it true Witnesses do not transfuse plasma?
If one of my fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses believes it a false presupposition that under Watchtower doctrine we can accept transfusion of cryosupernatant then let them say so and state why. I have confirmed the point by personal verification with multiple sources in Watchtower’s Hospital Information Services department. One of these was LC Cotton, who is well known to all Hospital Liaison Committee members throughout the United States and abroad. I have also verified an email where Watchtower’s Hospital Information Services confirmed this in writing. Notwithstanding this, if one of my brothers feels my statement is false let them say so, and why.
As for the Wikipedia information you cite, honestly compels me to disclose that that particular piece of information stems from one of my edits. Hence for purposes of this question and answer that source would be inappropriate.
I have spoken personally with Watchtower staffers on this point. Today Watchtower considers cryosupernatant a “fraction of plasma” and not plasma; hence Witnesses can accept transfusion of cryosupernatant on the same terms they can accept transfusion of cryoprecipitate. But cryosupernatant is more than 50 percent of the volume of whole blood, and it is more than 95 percent of plasma. Accordingly my question asks whether it is honest to tell folks that we refuse transfusion of plasma when Witnesses can accept cryosupernatant.
Incidentally, this marks either a change or mistake in Watchtower position because as of April 2002 Hospital Liaison Committees were told plasma supernatant was plasma. This distinction is found on a handout provided to Hospital Liaison Committee members by Watchtower expressing that cryoprecipitate “contains a small amount of plasma”. That statement depicts the common practice to leave a little supernatant with the precipitate as a transfusion vehicle
If I take 95% of the siding off your house without your express permission, would it be honest of me to tell your neighbors that I did not take your house's siding?
The supernatant portion of plasma (i.e., cryosupernatant) is 95-99% of the volume of plasma. You can learn the basics of this and find source information at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/0...
Again you respond but without answering the actual question asked. Why do you do this? Either you have some learning that helps answer the question, or you do not.
-- Why do you say there is confusion in the medical literature on this subject? Medical literature is no more confused about what cryosupernatant is than it is of what is cryoprecipitate or platelets. Medical doctors uniformly consider cryosupernatant as plasma with reduced levels of clotting factors. This is why the product is commonly referred to as cryo-poor plasma.
-- My question is asked to this broad audience because it is a broad audience that we address saying Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusion of plasma. Hence the impression of the broader audience is important to understand for sake of honest communication. Do you think the broader audience knows cryosupernatant makes up about 95-99% of plasma? Do you think we can accept transfusion of 95-99% of a substance and then honestly tell people we do not accept transfusion of that substance? Will you answer this question or ignore it?
-- Because I recognize some Watchtower teachings as patently false does not mean I think all Watchtower teachings are patently false. If we are without ability to recognize the bad from the good then we are not worshipping for ourselves but, rather, for someone else. It is essential that each person own what they believe based on the unbiased method of logical construction and refutation. Otherwise we fall prey to bias; either our own or someone else’s.
-- The personal disposition of an individual makes no difference to me whether they accept or reject conclusions I have achieved. More important to me is the reasons for any rejection so that I am able to continue learning and improving whatever views I own at the moment.
-- For whatever it is worth, and apparently it holds worth for you, those who seek that Watchtower disappears as an organization do not agree with all my conclusions.
-- I respect your prerogative to hold whatever view of my person you wish to hold. But if you want it to hold any merit your view of me should be based on the sound method of logical construction and refutation. If I hold views that are false then prove them false by refuting them on the unbiased and powerful grounds of logical deconstruction.
-- Do you think we can accept transfusion of 95-99% of a substance and then honestly tell people we do not accept transfusion of that substance? Will you answer this question or ignore it?
-- You write: “Cryo[supernatant] is NOT 100% plasma and therefore it becomes a *personal* decision as to whether it is viewed as equal to plasma.” Apparently you have taken time to research this by speaking with a Watchtower authority to learn what you assert on this point is correct in terms of Watchtower doctrine. Good. I encourage getting facts straight, which you have with that comment.
-- My question does not presuppose cryosupernatant is plasma as a matter of fact but, rather, simply for sake of the question is it presumed so. In essence, the question asks: Can we accept transfusion of 95-99% of a substance and then be honest announcing to the world that we do not accept transfusion of that substance? You offer no answer to this except to assert that “percentage that the remaining cryo. is of whole blood or plasma is irrelevant.”
-- If a doctor tells you that you must abstain from all drinks containing alcohol, but you remove the alcohol from beer and drink the major percentage that is left, have you disobeyed the doctor’s orders? Absolutely not.
-- No, because the doctor was telling me to abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, if transfusion of alcohol was essential to prevent my premature death accepting it would not be contrary to my doctor’s instruction.
-- We cannot remove blood from blood as we can remove alcohol from alcoholic beverages. So what is the point of your question?
-- If [a doctor] tells you to abstain from *beer* and you remove everything but the 90-95 % that is water have you abstained from beer? This could be debated, however neither view could be *proven* more correct without direct communication from the doctor himself.
-- If the reason is that *beer* is special and sacred property that belongs only to my doctor then to take anything of *beer* for my own purposes would be stealing. Do you agree or disagree with this?
-- However, when you add the fact that the doctor has somehow implicitly approved drinking water derived from blood then the case is closed. You can insist that it is the same as drinking beer, but you have no valid grounds for criticizing those with the opposite view.
-- It is no more than inductive conclusion to make assertions based on implications. Also, whether such an implication exists depends on the reason why my doctor would tell me to “abstain from *beer*”.
-- And further, if you use their drinking water derived from beer as an excuse for your disobedience in drinking beer, then your argument is self-defeating and hypocritical!
-- I have no idea what that is supposed to mean directed at me. If I tell someone that I do not drink another man’s beer it means I do not convert someone else’s beer to my own use regardless of how I dismantle it to drink the result of that dismantling.