Bloodless Hospital?!!!

4mylove

I believe that our medical director is putting out information on becoming a bloodless hospital to the higher ups! This scares the living $hit out of me! Let's hope I heard wrong.

4

Junction-Guy

Please keep us informed of this, is there anyway you can PM me the state that this hospital is in.?

AudeSapere

From your other thread about JW doctors:

Why! How can a whole hospital have this in place. I can understand a physician but the whole freakin hospital? Thanks for the info. Good to know.
It may not mean that there is no blood in the hospital.
About nine years I needed surgery and set out interviewing various surgeons practicing out of different area hospitals. One doctor was particularly kind, candid and informative. I mentioned the fact that I knew Tarzana Hospital to be 'bloodless' and he agreed that it was. Then, to clarify, he asked me if I thought that 'bloodless' meant that they do not use blood at all. 'Yes', that was my understanding.
He explained that in actuality, this is a marketing ploy - of sorts. In reality, when a hospital is classified as 'bloodless' it just means that any/and all proceedures *can* be performed without blood if the patient and physician choose. There are surgeons on staff to cover all types of surgeries without blood but there are quite a few docs who still use blood regularly. The 'bloodless' treatment is merely an option when seeking care at a 'bloodless' facility.

Just because a hospital has a bloodless program, does not necessarily mean you cannot get blood there. It just means that you have a choice.

FWIW, I just sent am email to the hospital that was linked in Snoozy's post on your other thread. A hospital in St Louis. I asked them if it was possible to get a transfusion at their 'Bloodless' Center.

If/when they respond, I will post it here.

-Aude.

4mylove

Thanks!

WTWizard

Generally, the decision to take blood should be up to the patient. The exception is, of course, when a minor (even a "mature" minor) is involved and the parents try to refuse the blood on religious grounds. In that case, there is nothing wrong with a court-ordered blood transfusion if it becomes blatantly obvious that the child is going to die or be permanently impaired without it.

Blood has its risks and costs to go along with its benefits. But most patients are aware of this. There is the risk of getting type mismatches. Whatever drugs the patient has been taking for whatever will probably end up in the blood, and the recipient can get adverse and allergic reactions from that. And there is still the risk of getting AIDS and Hepatitis C from improperly tested blood (or some new infection for which there isn't yet a test). And frivolously taking blood wastes it so it is not available for critical situations.

However, when it's that or the patient is probably going to die or suffer permanent brain damage, it is pretty blatant which is the better deal. Take the blood and probably get better, or refuse the blood and probably get worse or die. In an emergency situation, there is usually little time to seek alternatives. In these situations, it is better to just go for it. The patient is likely, in these cases, to have plenty of drugs administered on his own, so the addition of a few micrograms of statins and blood pressure drugs or Prozac/Paxil is unlikely to make significant difference. It is better than certain death or brain damage.

Let the patients choose. I don't like allopathic medicine, except for handling crisis situations or for managing the dying process. But, it is one option that people should have the right to choose; in most situations that call for blood, it is the only viable option. It is better, if possible, to use natural methods to prevent the problems that cause operations in the first place; however, free will and the occasional emergency will often make surgery (and blood) necessary. Plus, children that are already in for surgery or who have been in an accident should get blood when necessary.

By all means, mature people (not "mature minors" have the right to make choices. But they should be based solely on cost/benefit, not religion. If a treatment is going to have great risks or create new problems for minimal benefit, that is reason enough to shun it in that circumstance. However, if the benefits outweigh the cost, then people should not be impeded by some religious fanatics in Brooklyn to not take it.

AudeSapere

I'm trying to post but keep getting error message...

AudeSapere

I just heard from the hospital in response to my inquiry via their website...

Here is my initial inquiry:

Comments & Questions: I read that you are a Bloodless Hospital. Does that mean that I cannot receive blood transfusion at your facility? Please clarify for me. Thanks!

Today's email response from hospital admin:

F***** P*** Community Hospital no longer has a "Bloodless" program. Bloodless Programs do not mean that you cannot receive a blood transfusion. ³Bloodless² programs provide quality medical and surgical care without the use of stored blood or its primary components for those persons who request it. To achieve this goal, various techniques are used to properly prepare patients for surgery and to minimize blood loss during surgery.

So I asked a follow-up question:

Thank you so much for your prompt reply. Your explanation was my understanding as well but in conversation with a friend there was a different expectation by that person. May I ask why the ‘Bloodless’ program has been discontinued? -Denise.

I'll post update when I hear back again.

-Denise.

AudeSapere

YAY!!

I needed to post to Notepad and then copy to here and re-format.

Whew!! Glad I got that figured out. Now I can go back to the work that helps me pay my bills...

-Denise.

4mylove

Denise,

Thanks so much for doing this!!!!!!! I appreciate it greatly!!!!! I'm trying to get the dirt on whether my assumptions were right. Thank you Thank you Thank you.

4

Bloodless Hospital?!!!

Share this