Refuting JW claims that blood hurts people

by Mad Sweeney 11 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Mad Sweeney

  On a thread somewhere else a Dub posted:

  Finally, on the blood issue. For us, it is a moral question. But consider how many people die each year from shock because they received the wrong blood type. Or they contract diseases such as AIDS or hepatitis. Many more people die and suffer from receiving blood that those who reject transfusions. Instead of calling them “life-saving” transfusions, the headlines should read “dangerous life-threatening” or “death-dealing” transfusions.

  JWs say such things all the time but of course without showing any numbers to back it up.

  Does anyone have a link to actual data on this? How many people really do die from receiving the wrong blood type? How many really do get aids or hepatitis? How many die for refusing blood and blood products?

  Rhetoric is simple and intellectually lazy. Where are the facts?
• 

  serenitynow!

  http://www.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/; http://www.jhoonline.org/

  Here are a couple of examples of professional journal sites I found online. Search "haematology." Personally, I would not put a lot of time and effort poring through professional journals to prove something to someone stupid enough to make such an ignorant, blatantly erroneous comment. A person like that does not realize that they need evidence to back his/her statement up; the research would be lost on such a person.

  I know that the last time I looked at watchtower.org about their position on blood they had references in some cases to medical journals from the 80s. It's ironic, JWs constantly change doctrines, and their understanding of the scriptures, but when it comes to medical research, they are more than content to hang on to blurbs in 20 year old texts (probably taken out of context in the first place) and not acknowledge the advancements of medical science. In medicine, a person can't just spout off 20 year old research like it's gospel and totally ignore current advancements being made.

  They won't look at current journals regarding blood because the evidence will show that blood is very safe. Unless that JW is referring possibly to people getting tranfusions in 3rd world countries, he is just dumb. I have administered blood to many patients, and I have never seen a serious blood reaction. The reason is because the way that the blood is tested, and the potential recipient is tested makes the chances of a person getting diseased blood, or the wrong type minimal. There are also very stringent rules in place in order to monitor transfused patients so that if an adverse reaction should occur, we can intervene immediately.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Not a lot of time for research today but here is one set of stats I found relating to being given the wrong blood type:

  "Acute hemolytic transfusion reactions (HTRs or AHTRs) account for the vast majority of fatalities related to Blood transfusion. . . It is fatal in about one in 500,000"

  (from http://www.bloodbook.com/death-notify.html )

  One in 500,000 is 0.0002%, which is a pretty small number. As stated above, these 0.0002% deaths are the vast majority of fatalities related to blood transfusion. AIDS and hepatitis, then, apparently kill at a far lesser rate.

  A different page on the same website (http://www.bloodbook.com/trans-risk.html ) gives the average of contracting A bloodborne transmitted disease as one in 340,000 in the United States. That is a 0.0003% rate of infection, NOT deaths. I haven't found the data yet on how many survive these infections but lets assume for a moment that everyone who gets infected dies from it. Combine it with the acute hemolytic transfusion deaths and now you have around 5 out of every million people who receive transfusions dying from them, or 0.0005% as the absolute statistical possible maximum (meaning reality is MUCH lower).

  Now, consider one million people who doctors feel need a transfusion and who REFUSE one. How many of them die? I'd really like to know some stats but I would think it is WAY over half of them. If the doctors think you need blood, you probably do.
• 

  leavingwt

  But consider how many people die each year from shock because they received the wrong blood type. Or they contract diseases such as AIDS or hepatitis.

  This is a red herring.

  People die from a wide assortment of hospital and pharmacy errors. Many routine surgeries/medicines come with risks. This has nothing to do with rejecting proven medical treatment in the face of certain death, which is what happens.

  (This type of logic could lead one to reject ALL medical treatment, because "doctors make mistakes".)

  Bottom line: There are medical emergencies which REQUIRE blood products that are forbidden to JWs. They choose death instead of the available treatment.
• 

  undercover

  LWT is on the right track here...

  JWs don't ban blood because of the possible side-effects or possible errors of doctors. Their stand is based on two or three Bible scriptures. So when discussing the blood doctrine one should stick to what the Bible says and forget all the side arguments that have nothing to do with the reason why JWs forbid the use of blood.

  Once you stick to the subject you can then use the principles of Jesus Christ to show that the JW stand on blood is wrong.

  Case closed. Dismiss the jury. Court adjourned.
• 

  serenitynow!

  You're right leavingwt. This person has used fallacies. What he/she is trying to do is say "hey blood is dangerous anyway" instead of making the argument about whether or not blood transfusions are scriptural. The reason why JWs refuse blood has nothing to do with blood not being safe, or not being effective. The person needs to focus on talking about the real reason he/she refuses blood.
• 

  leavingwt

  bttt
• 

  Found Sheep

  I've given 100's of blood transfusions, as a nurse, must say today I had my first "reaction"... I've seen it save many lives.... and even today's reaction i don't think will be a life altering problem....
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Just two in a million blood type reaction deaths and around three in a million infections, most of which likely do NOT lead to death.

  Has to be one of the safer procedures around. Safer than taking a shower. Safer than driving to work. Safer than shoveling snow. It's right up there with the dangers of getting a haircut.
• 

  maninthemiddle

  so...1 in 500,000 chance of dying from a tranfusion, or 1 in 2 chance of bleeding to death...ok, go ahead and choose...hurry up, you only have seconds!