Are Blood Tranfusions as dangerous and risky and the WTS claim?

by Fisherman 40 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jgnat

  blood not be used on him except under the the most extenuating of circumstances

  I agree. Blood should only be used if the alternative is death. In the case of catastrophic blood loss (severed Jugular) or extreme anemia (hemhorrage from pregnancy), the alternative IS death. Yes, there is a relative risk of catching a disease. I know of a baby who was born with hepatitis from a contaminated blood transfusion. This caused liver damage. He had to be monitored very closely for the first year of life.

  But, he's ALIVE! The alternative is just unthinkable.
• 

  rebel8

  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?

  Male hemophiliacs no longer have a greater statistical chance of dying young than non-hemophiliac males. This is due to the fact that hemophilia factor is now pasteurized and goes through extremely rigorous testing, and is not administered without checks and rechecks of blood type etc. Clotting factor is also now administered as a prophylactic in severe hemophilia cases, so these people for once can lead normal lives.

  One of the many facts the borganization fails to mention with hemophiliacs in the '70s and '80s regarding bloodborne infections is that, even if they knew infection would occur, some would have chosen to receive clotting factor anyway (and it was not available in pastuerized form back then). This is because internal bleeding is extremely painful, disfiguring, and disabling. Once clotting factor became available to them, they were literally leaving wheelchairs in droves. Many would have been dead anyway without the clotting factor. I am not saying they were happy to get AIDS etc., but it just happens to be true that some of them would have made the choice to die in 10+ years from an infection instead of writhe in excrutiating pain and die within a matter of months from untreated bleeds. I personally know several who say so, and I personally would have made that choice for myself had the situation arisen.

  Since pasteurization was implemented, there have been NO cases of bloodborne infection from clotting factor. NONE. (In the US that is; I don't know the info for other countries.)

  Risk of infection still exists for less safe products such as packed red blood cells.
• 

  crazyblondeb

  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.

  I can atest to this!! Plus, no doctor I worked with used blood just to hear his own voice!! If nothing else, it was only used when there was no other alternative!!
• 

  rebel8

  From AWJRB's web site:

  Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation - Now available online - click here
  An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in Baylor University’s peer reviewed Journal of Church and State’s Autumn 2005 issue, exposes the vulnerability of the Watchtower Society to tort claims because of the religion’s misrepresentations of secular writers.
• 

  aniron

  There are risks in ANY medical procedure whether blood is used or not.

  As has been said- If the use of Blood Transfusions was as dangerous and risky as the JW's want people to believe. Then why are they still performed? Why the constant call for blood donors?

  What JW's don't like is that through the years they have been proved wrong about their stand on blood.

  Now even the are gradually whittling away at what is or not allowed. When I became a JW in early 70's absolutely nothing of blood was allowed. If it came from or made from blood it was forbidden.

  Now we see that they allowed fractions of this and that blood component.

  I wonder what those who lost loved ones because of not being allowed a certain fraction/compnent now feel.

  Very similar to the organ transplant situation, I should think.

  Can you imagine being in a Kingdom Hall and hearing that Brother X's child had a successful operation because he was allowed a certain blood fraction. When years before your child died because you were told NO BLOOD of any kind allowed.

  The JW's use the risk of Blood transfusions far more than the scriptural reasons, to frighten people.

  How would they fair if blood transfusion was the most safest medical treatment you could have.

  How would their scriptural basis hold up then?
• 

  stevenyc

  There is a site called noblood.org which has nurses (and a lot of JWs) partaking in discution regarding non-blood surgery. It states the usual Watchtower stuff. Some may find it offensive, but it's always good to understand a different point of view.
  
  My medical education stops at Advil for a hangover, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy.
  
  steve
• 

  stevenyc

  One other thing I feel I need to add. Even if recovery times are shortened and infection chances are lowered, this has nothing to do with whether the Watchtower stance on blood transfusion can be validated. Participants of risky surgical practices who are forced into their decision by a misreading, and now a deliberate deception, of an ancient text are not entirely 'willing' participants.
  
  steve
• 

  A Paduan

  I had one over 40 yrs ago - wouldn't be here without it - didn't catch any disease either.

  Global disease spread (hep. & aids) became rampant before the blood banks were onto it - and there was money involved - the authorities in the U.S. were sternly warned about the possibility of HIV in blood product, but there was too much money involved - other countries that don't pay donors for blood products didn't have so many of the alley address crew donating either.

  The safety depends on your individual health sytems in place - I transfuse quite a bit, in critical care, with no patients adversely effected.

  When someone announces their superior "jwism" medical stance, it's as if the devil had just entered the room - once these people are of age (generally >21) no one really cares - there's a kind of "oh well" attitude, as if accountabilty for saving them just got transferred back to the patient.

  I think the medical term is "who's next then"
• 

  Highlander

  Quite frankly, if the alternative to taking blood is death, then I really don't care what risks are invovled by taking blood.

  There are risks involved in any medical procedure.

  That being said, I tired of the fear based propaganda that the WT uses to scare the dubs away from blood. If their doctrine is legitimate and more importantly, honest,

  then there is no reason to use fear as a motivator.
• 

  Gerard

  Recently someone sliped an Awake mag under my door. The whole thing is on blood and pretends to be an 'objective' scientific research document that physicians would kill for.

  I decided to have a good laugh and started reading, but I stoped in amazement early on when I read something quoted from an imaginary physician (parafrasing):

  "Blood transports good things like oxigen, but also transports junk like carbon dioxide. THAT is why blood transfusions are bad as nobody can guarantee blood will not have junk."

  I can not think of a more deceiving and dishonest statement, and pretend that this is an expert's medical advice!!!! Regarding red blood cells only: The O2/CO2 gas exchange in the lungs is very fast and simultaneous and surely there are other transfusion concerns than this transient CO2 gas content, such as rejections and infections.

  The sole purpose of red blood cells is gas exchange and the blood's capacity to exchange gases has not been replicated and is not available, therefore its life-saving qualities following bleeding or trauma.

  Be aware that simply r eplacing red cells' volume with plasma or saline, will NOT substitute the oxygenation -and CO2 removal- done by the hemoglobin inside the red blood cells. Certainly all physicians and RN nurses are more aware of this than a window-washer cult fanatic typing at a bethel booth.