by blindersoff 21 Replies latest jw friends
Huh?
Ignoring the overt racism in the post, and assuming your posts contains valid points (which I'll leave to others to correct)....
Most people on earth don't live in "bakward" places like Africa. Why on earth should increased risks of blood transfusions in Africa affect how JWs, or anyone, who live in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, or Australia view them as a medical treatment?
Marking . . .
@ Vidqun, who said
If you have been to these bakward places, like Africa, you will know the standards are not very high.
But what if you live in most of the rest of the world, USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, most of Europe, the Nordic countries, etc, where medical practices are much higher, what then? Should you still reject blood because Africa has problems?
As far as I know, studies did prove that those people that were not transfused (e.g. JWs) recover quicker from major operations and that they have less infections.
Why would you make a medical point by starting with "As far as I know?" It suggests you don't have concrete evidence to make the point.
You remind me of Mankkeli.
I asked my Physiology Professor about it, and he remarked that blood was like dynamite. If you don't treat it correctly, it will kill you.
How interesting--and suspicious--that your logic (using the term loosely) mimics the blood brochure and your "professor" made a comment that is eerily similiar to this quote from the brochure: "Blood is dynamite! It can do a great deal of good or a great deal of harm."
The video is accurate for the scope that it is covering. It discusses situations for planned surgeries where preparations can be made and equipment prepared.
It's in cases of emergency and illness where the blood issue is most often a case of life and death. The videos don't show examples where a new mother has lost a great deal of blood or an accident victim who's bled considerably. They've highlighted one area of treatment where "worldly" doctors are able to achieve great success in treating without donated blood. The videos ignore the harsh reality that thousands are still dying needlessly because of their misinterpretation of ancient texts regarding disposal of the blood of dead animals.
Here is a USA today article:http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-05-22-death-rates-side_N.htm
| |||||||||||||||||||
If you are, you might be wondering about such things as the hospital's bypass-surgery death rate, how long you'll be in the hospital and how much the surgery costs. Until recently, people routinely endured life-and-death procedures without getting the kind of answers they demand when buying a home or car. That's beginning to change. Growing amounts of information on hospital performance are a mouse-click away, thanks to the Internet's limitless capacity and a bold consensus that transparency serves hospitals and consumers. HOSPITAL DEATH RATES:Medicine's best-kept secret revealed"We're in the middle of an amazing transformation," says Steve Corwin of New York-Presbyterian Hospital. For those wondering what the future holds, it's worth visiting the website of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. (www.dartmouth-hitchcock.org), part of a system that includes Dartmouth Medical School. Click on the "Quality Reports" tab at the top of the virtual file drawer and look up coronary artery bypass graft surgery. You'll learn that the hospital's death rate is 2.3%, a shade below the national average of 2.5%. The length of stay is 7.2 days, a tenth of a day longer than the national average, and the charges will total about $75,000, roughly $49,000 for the hospital and $26,000 for doctors. How much will you pay out of pocket? "Click on the Calculator to find out." "Fundamentally, we believe we're in a partnership with patients," says Melanie Mastanduno, the hospital's director of quality measurement. "Only if they have information can they make good decisions about their health care." Although not everyone is releasing the same amount of information, the movement toward transparency is spreading quickly through the USA. Among the leaders: the federal government, a handful of states, leading hospitals and such groups as the Hospital Quality Alliance and National Quality forum, two membership organizations working with the federal government to set national standards for performance measurement and reporting. For the past two years, Medicare has used those standards to report on what steps thousands of hospitals take to prevent or treat heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia and surgical wound infections. Hospitals responded by putting in place systems to make sure patients get the care they need. "We're trying to create a quality guarantee," says Kim Eagle, director of clinical cardiology at the University of Michigan. "We're going to say to you, if you get discharged from our institution either with heart failure or (a heart attack), you got these treatments or there's a reason why you didn't." Visitors to health department websites in New York and Massachusetts can see which doctors and hospitals have the highest and lowest death rates for bypass surgery and angioplasty. Consumers in Pennsylvania and Florida can use the Internet to shop for medical care at every hospital in the state, comparing costs, lengths of hospital stays, surgical complications and death rates. California's website details how well every hospital in the state follows guidelines for heart care. Do all heart attack patients get aspirin to prevent coronary events? Blood pressure medication? Counseling on diet and smoking? Even the Joint Commission, a non-profit accreditation organization that evaluates and offers its seal of approval to about 15,000 health organizations, now posts information on the Web. Some of the best-known hospital report cards are produced by private research firms. HealthGrades in Golden, Colo., uses government and other records to rate how patients fared after treatment — after adjusting for the severity of their illnesses, age and other factors. "We don't just report the best (hospitals). We know people want to stay away from the worst," says chief medical officer Samantha Collier. Solucient, based in Evanston, Ill., analyzes hospitals' quality of care and how they perform financially, mainly for hospital administrators and board members. Since 1993, the company has been publishing a "scorecard" of the top 100 hospitals. "We're not measuring whether a particular nurse was nice to a particular patient. We measure whether this organization performs well across the board," says Jean Chenoweth, senior vice president of performance improvement. Grading hospitals is anything but easy, experts say, and sometimes the information can be challenging even for experts to interpret. For example, Florida's health information website, www.floridahealthstate .com, notes that Shands Hospital at the University of Florida has a higher bypass surgery death rate, 6.31%, than the state rate of 2.51%. "Florida's an unusual state," says Curt Tribble, Shands' chief of cardiovascular surgery. "We're one of four transplant centers in the state, the fifth-busiest heart and lung transplant center in the country. We do almost all the Jehovah's Witnesses in the state, and they refuse transfusions. We're also a site for people with extraordinary obesity. One guy we did last week weighed 500 pounds." Most hospital grading systems attempt to balance out these factors. But Tribble says that can be difficult. "The tricky part is that risk-adjustment systems don't perform well at the extremes of risk," he says. "We're a magnet for the sickest patients." | |||||||||||||||||||
The WAtchtower likes to "pick and choose" what it tells followers. I prefer broad based items:
New research to be published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology has found that women who are Jehovah's witnesses face a significantly increased risk of death during childbirth. The study found that women in this group are six times more likely to die, and three times more likely to have morbidity (serious complications), than average (compared to the general Dutch population). This increase includes a 130 fold increased risk of death from major obstetric haemorrhage.
Jehovah's witnesses are a religious society with more than six million members worldwide. For religious reasons, most Jehovah's witnesses refuse transfusion of blood or any of its primary components (red and white blood cells, platelets and plasma), even when red blood cell transfusion could be life saving.
In this nationwide retrospective study, the researchers examined all cases of maternal mortality in the Netherlands between 1983 and 2006, and all cases of serious maternal morbidity between 2004 and 2006.
The authors report that all identified cases of maternal mortality in Jehovah's witnesses during this period were caused by major obstetric haemorrhage. The refusal of red blood cell transfusion was found to be an important factor in the course of events leading to the death of these women. All cases of serious maternal morbidity in Jehovah's witnesses were similarly caused by major obstetric haemorrhage and linked to the refusal of red blood cell transfusion.
While the society of Jehovah's witnesses has issued a clear stance against transfusion of blood or any of its major components, individual members may have different positions on accepting treatment with other blood products such as coagulation factors, or receiving back their own blood collected using a cell-saver. These individual choices can make a big difference in management options in cases of major obstetric haemorrhage. The authors recommend that the exact treatments acceptable to each patient, together with available alternatives, be discussed early in pregnancy.
Professor Jos van Roosmalen, Chairman of the National Maternal Mortality Committee of the Netherlands Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and supervisor of the research, said 'In the Netherlands, the overall maternal mortality ratio due to obstetric haemorrhage is extremely low at 0.67 per 100,000 live births. Excellent blood transfusion facilities contribute heavily to this low ratio.'
'Jehovah's witnesses, by refusing blood transfusion, expose themselves to a serious risk during childbirth. Our survey has shown a maternal mortality ratio due to obstetric haemorrhage of 68 per 100, 000 live births in this group, a 130 times higher risk than the average.'
Professor Philip Steer, BJOG editor-in-chief, said 'Major obstetric haemorrhage is one of the main causes of maternal mortality and serious maternal morbidity. It is important for doctors to discuss all risks and available alternatives with patients early in pregnancy, to ensure that both patient and doctor have a clear understanding of the options in the event of an emergency.'
'Any hospital treating Jehovah's witnesses should have a clear protocol for obstetric care, and ensure training for staff in the management of obstetric haemorrhage in these patients.'
Thanks Billy and Skeeter.
I don't know the video they are referring to.
If it is produced by the Watchtower, ask for a copy. Are the actors paid by the Watchtower? What in specific are the doctor's talking about? The Watchtower likes to take quotes out of context, and with an editing room . . . . they can and will do that to secular sources. Are the doctors for minimizing blood loss, or do they recognize that some planned operations and procedures have a higher risk? Are the doctors talking about emergency blood loss - like a car accident where there is severe blood loss, risk of irreversable shock?
What does this video say of "fractions"? Does it tell that all of the fractions would equal a whole unit of blood if added together? I bet not! Seems silly to abstain from blood, but then take everything.
Lately, I've seen a new argument coming out of the Watchtower. It's that apostates & doctors influenced by apostates are adding unneeded stress on the JW patient and JW patient's family, by relating blood facts and/or presenting opposing viewpoints. Let me know if you see any hint of that argument.
I've also seen this strange argument that "fractions are not blood," likened in the same way elements of nature (i.e. carbon, oxygen, hydrogen) are not blood. The problem with this argument is that natural elements like carbon and oxygen can be found everwhere. They are atoms found in many things.....yes, in blood, but also in rocks from space, diamonds, arctic ice, computer chips, etc. But, blood frations come FROM blood, and FROM blood only. I've seen news articles that try to paint hemoglobin as an "artificial" or "synthetic" blood. Artificial/synethic to a layman connotes "plastic" or completely man made. This is NOT TRUE of any blood derived fraction. All blood-derived fractions COME FROM blood. Yes, it's spun, frozen, precipitated, etc. through a chemical lab. But, the first ingredient is blood, whole blood. Donated by humans, cows, horses, pigs, etc. B-L-O-O-D.
Skeeter
As far as I know, studies did prove that those people that were not transfused (e.g. JWs) recover quicker from major operations and that they have less infections.
Why would you make a medical point by starting with "As far as I know?" It suggests you don't have concrete evidence to make the point.
So, say an unlucky JW woman in childbirth NEEDS a blood transfusion. She refuses. She has a 130% higher chance of dying.
Say, she takes a blood transfusion. She lowered her chances of dying by 130%. Poor gal is still unlucky. She gets an infection. ANTIBIOTICS? Can she take antibiotics? Yes. Cures most blood infections. See the Big News article. There was a study on post-blood transfusion infections and how the patients lived with simple antibiotics.
Skeeter
