Is HIV-screened blood safe?

by Bonnie_Clyde 2 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Bonnie_Clyde

  This is the title of an article in the Awake! A baby in Nigeria is infected with HIV through a blood transfusion she received at one of Nigeria's leading hospitals.

  The Awake! continues to rant that "Jehovah's Witnesses have long followed the Bible's direct to 'keep abstaining from blood.' The protection this has afforded them underscores the wisdom of obeying God's instructions."

  Nothing new here--but it shows they are not letting up--despite the fact that HIV can be transmitted through organ transplants, which are allowable. Wouldn't it also follow that HIV could be transmitted through blood fractions?

  I still have to slap myself when I remember that I followed this doctrine 100%.
• 

  WTWizard

  I will make one thing totally clear: No blood is 100% safe. There is always going to be a risk of a mistake, or a new disease that they don't have the technology to screen for. And there is a chance of type mismatches of various factors. Taking a blood transfusion is not something I would want to mess with. Unlike playing with a Ouija board or decorating for Christmas, using blood for frivolous situations is not wise.

  However, there is a point where the benefits outweigh the risks. If a child's life is at stake, that for sure outweighs the risks. There is going to be a chance of getting AIDS because of a stupid mistake in screening. But without the blood, the risk of dying or having serious adverse effects from not dying is far greater, if not 100%. And there is the cost of the blood itself--frivolous blood transfusions will deprive people that really need blood. Here is one area I highly recommend doing cost/benefit analysis on a case by case basis: If the benefits outweigh the total costs, then the blood should be used anyways, even with the risk of getting AIDS or hepatitis X.
• 

  glenster

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion#Complications_and_risks