by Fisherman 40 Replies latest watchtower medical
In and old post by Marvin, he provides a link to a wts response to blood treatment. The wts society spokeman writes that blood transfusions may cause immunological disorders. Since modern medicine gave out thousands of infected blood transfusions in the past causing death and ravaging disease such as aids and incurable and horrible hepatitis to mention some, there is reason for concern.
How safe and effective is blood treatment today? Any facts?
Sorry no facts, but something to ponder. With the cost and frequency of litigation, along with the cost of insurance, do you really think doctors indiscriminately prescribe blood when there are safer, viable, effective alternatives?
Every medical procedure carries risk, but there are situations when blood is far safer than the risk of not having it.
Here's the World Health Organization's web page on it; interesting stuff: http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/en/
Dave
In all my years of nursing, I can say I've seen thousands helped and saved from using blood. To me, the benefits far outweigh the risks!!
shelley
I have to wonder how safe is it to ride in a 10 year old 4 door car in traffic and knock on stranger's doors?
Well. Lorin Greene, Amanda Blake and Pope John xxiiv all died from bts, but they were all years ago
Yes indeed they are!
Setting aside the whole question of theology, what indeed are the risks. They are significant enought that virtually any new product coming to market with simlar risks simply would not be allowed to be used. Flurocarbons are officially kept off the market because of a lower increased risk of heart attacks in those who recieve them than the risks associated with transfusion.
The first risk comes from transfusing the wrong types. Okay, we know about that, but despite testing an unknown number die every year from transfusion reaction. I personally know of several who died because they got the wrong type of blood and the nurses who were supposed to be monitoring them didn't do their job. And guess what, neither death certificate listed "blood transfusion reaction" as the cause of death. I know that might well set the nurses on this forum to howling in protest, but it goes on.
Then there is the matter of diseases which may be transmitted by transfusion. The last time I saw an authoritative figure it was about 120 different diseases and climbing. Does anyone seriously think that the Red Cross, much less anybody else, tests for all those diseases, many of which are potentially fatal? Because the cost would be prohibitive they don't. but it gets even worse than that. Even though they do test for some of the most feared pathogens, it is not uncommon for the Red cross to go ahead and release the blood for use before the results are known. How does the phrase "crap shoot" sound?
There are also other ways one can be killed by transfusions. Thalesemics, sickle cell anemics, and others who require many transfusions of blood over a long time can be killed from volume overload, iron toxicity, and other problems related to the transfusions. Like I said, products with those kind of problems are not allowed on the market by the FDA, and yet blood is encouraged for the simple reason that a whole industry depends on the use of the product for its existence.
For those reasons, I have a brother, who is an RN and not a Dub, who insists that blood not be used on him except under the the most extenuating of circumstances and I don't blame him one bit. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the theological position here. All I am doing is laying out the answer to the question posed. Simply put, blood is a biological product which is dangerous to use and it should not be used as casually as it is today. But then, with an industry dedicated to promoting its use, it is no suprise it is.
There's your answer, at least you can make a more informed decision now.
Forscher
Fisherman writes:
“In and old post by Marvin, he provides a link to a wts response to blood treatment. The wts society spokeman writes that blood transfusions may cause immunological disorders. Since modern medicine gave out thousands of infected blood transfusions in the past causing death and ravaging disease such as aids and incurable and horrible hepatitis to mention some, there is reason for concern.
“How safe and effective is blood treatment today? Any facts?”
The relative safety and effectiveness of blood based therapies forbidden under the WTS’ blood doctrine depends on patient presentation.
In the case of patients who will die without a forbidden blood therapy then without a doubt it is safer and more effective to have the therapy than not having the therapy.
If you are serious about this subject then there are several books I recommend. One is Dailey’s Notes On Blood, by John F. Dailey. Another is Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery, edited by Nicolus Jabbour.
Interestingly, in Jabbour’s book Chapter One he co-authors with two others, one of which is an active Jehovah’s Witness by the name of Randy Henderson. In this chapter these authors agree that the standard of care it to administer blood transfusions. Medical standards of care are based on peer reviews of all medical therapies. In this case the medical consensus is that risks associated with blood based therapies do not outweigh the therapy’s usefulness when using it is the best way to provide optimal outcome.
Something you should not overlook in your research is that under the WTS’ blood policy Jehovah’s Witnesses use blood based therapies all the time, and plenty of them I am compelled to add. Current WTS’ doctrine provides that, as a matter of conscience, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses can literally accept every last drop of a unit of donated and stored blood so long as it is sufficiently fractionated first. (See WTS provided Durable Power of Attorney Document for Jehovah’s Witnesses dated 2001)
Something else you should not overlook is that under the WTS’ blood doctrine Jehovah’s Witnesses can and do accept a blood constituent known as cryoprecipitate for the purpose of improving blood clotting. This particular blood therapy is more dangerous than whole blood transfusion because the constituent of cryoprecipitate is collected from many donors and mixed. Even the WTS’ biased folks at Noblood.org admit this fact on their wiki page found at http://noblood.org/wiki/index.php/What_are_Fractions_of_Blood .
Again, if you are serious about this issue then you have lots of reading to do.
Marvin Shilmer
well you woundn't stop buying all cars just because citroen had tire issues, would you? Same goes with blood. But I know Jehovah's witnesses are master of scaremongering and use any negative example they can find to justify their irrational beliefs.
As much information as folks have about blood these days I don't know of ANYONE who would accept it unless it were absolutely necessary.
Anyone have an idea of the average age of death for those with sickle cell anemia and hemophilia was BEFORE blood transfusions and what they are currently? I think there are dangers from accepting blood, but I also know there are some who face certain or near certain death without it. If I knew my child faced death or a very small chance of a chronic blood born illness, I would take the chance of the chronic illness.
Speak to someone who works in a trauma room, and find out the role that blood takes in saving lives at times. Blood IS life, and there is no negating its importance.
