Evidence In Favor Of Bloodless Surgery Mounts
by Bangalore 18 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
bohm
hmm. it seem pretty solid, but i wonder: if the doctors are performing a bloodless surgery, they puncture an artery and has to administer blood as a last-minute precaution or the patient will die because of low red blood cell count, is that still counted in the statistics as a bloodless surgery?
-
wobble
Thanks for posting, Bangalore,
All this makes sense from a medical point of view.
The problem is a lot of DumbDubs will see this as some sort of vindication of their murderous and unscriptural Blood policy/doctrine. Sigh.
Love
Wobble
-
rebel8
The caution of course is this is a journalist's interpretation of medical research that s/he may or may not be qualified to interpret.
Judging from this comment by a medical professional who has actually read the journal article, it sounds like there is more to the story.
-
sir82
"Bloodless" surgery is of course rarely completely "bloodless", at least according to the WT standards of a generation ago.
"Bloodless" surgery can include cell salvage, hemodilution, administration of EPO, etc., all of which was unequivocally banned for JWs 30+ years ago.
"Bloodless" surgery is indeed wonderful, and likely a better option, when the procedure can be scheduled in advance and allows for such an option. Of course, in cases of severe trauma and/or high blood loss, transfusions of plasma and/or red cells are still the best, perhaps only, treatment that has even a chance of success.
-
PSacramento
Many surgerys that in the pasr cause lots of bleeding are now, with modern technology, far less invasive with far less bleeding.
The use of lazers for example, that allow the surgeon to cut and cauterize, have decreased to need for blood tremedously.
-
PSacramento
I think that in the past, many hospitals were a tad to liberal in the use of blood, the fact that there are alternatives is NOT a bad thing.
Though I always have concerns when I read an article in favour of a procedure that is more "cost effective".
-
alanv
I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that it is better not to use someone elses blood if possable, but as some other posters have said, there are times that it has to be used or the person would certainly die. The borg I am sure will put there own spin on this, but the fact remains that they would still let someone die rather than breaking their own man made rules regarding blood.
-
Elsewhere
I expect a Dr. to do whatever is safest and will save my life.
If doing it without blood is safer, then lets do it that way.
If I'm laying on the table bleeding out, hell yeah, hook me up for some blood!
-
Spook
I just had it out with someone about this. There are many uses for blood. But in reality, this is a spectrum question, not a black or white one. I ask JW's
On a scale of 1-10 where
1 = Medical blood use is pagan midieval quackery.
5 = Medical blood use is sometimes necessary but never risk free and should be considered carefully with other medical options.
10 = Medical blood use is a miraculous panacea...
Where do people stand?
I think most JW's are between 1-3.
I think most doctors are between 5-7.
I think anyone between 3-8 could be reasonable moderates. I myself would probably be at about a 6. It's important to distinguish between emergency and surgical uses of blood.
You must consider how many people die from either no treatment or substitute treatment. Most such studies do not adequately address this, particularly emergency blood usage. This is because we don't just let someone almost bleed to death when we have the chance to use a - sometimes risky - solution.