Article - Blood Refusal by Pregnant Women "a 65-fold increased risk of death"

by BluesBrother 13 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  garyneal

  When my wife had my first daughter, I did not think anything about the blood doctrine. She wasn't an active witness at the time and yet she still refused blood. She's had only two actual experiences with the blood issues that has convinced her that the society is right. One is her aunt contracting hepatitus from tainted blood during a transfusion, the other is her mom having surgery to remove her cancer and opting to do it without blood. Since the surgery went well she believes her mom received the best medical care.

  By the time our second daughter was born, she was baptized and I had learned the truth about the truth TM . Needless to say I was more concerned this time than before but fortunately all went well. She delivered vaginally both times.
• 

  familycomesfirst4

  Scully,

  Thanks for the web link. I've looked it over and it helped relieve some of the anxiety. I've emailed it to her and will talk with her tonight about it. The risks are there for a v-bac, but they seem a bit smaller than I originally thought and that's comforting. As for the no-blood.....that's a different issue.

  We've talked with the doctor and she has shown us she's both experienced w/ v-bacs and is also fine w/ the no-blood issue. She's also familiar w/ my wife's history. The hospital is familar w/ many non-blood techniques and surgeries. A few years back they did open heart surgery for an elder in our then-bookstudy using no-blood methods, and he came through w/ flying colors.

  However, I don't know if it's just the boyscout (pre-JW) in me always wanting to be prepared, or the insurance agent in me always concerned w/ the risk, but to just outright say 'no blood' still keeps me a bit anxious. She understands I'm not gunning for blood, but just want it there if it's absolutely needed as the only alternative. She's still pretty firm in her decision.

  As for the delivery room, it's me and only me in there. If that means that the sister has less of a say-so, then she knows she's going to have to trust me. Frankly, I'm not sure how much she's thought that part through. But believe me, it's only me in that delivery room.
• 

  stuckinlimbo

  As much as I abhor the blood policy, I must say I feel the 65% more likely to die from haemorrhage due to blood refusal is utter crap. What leads to so many haemorrhages in the first place has a lot to do with modern obstetric management and less to do with women who need 'saving' from natural childbirth. For instance, C-sections greatly increase the likelyhood a blood transfusion will be needed, and c-sections are often needed after a cascade of interventions that were unnecessary and harmful. Traction on the cord is another biggie as is incomplete manual removal of placenta, oxytocin (actually used to reduce blood loss, but can lead to retention of the placenta), etc, etc.

  I do not expect everyone to agree with my views on this by any means, my point is that you can't just put blinkers on and say that women who choose no blood are putting themselves at a much greater risk of death, but also that women who choose a "medicalised" and often mismanaged labour and birth through an American or other hospital where birth is over "medicalised" are putting themselves at a much greater risk of harm or death.

  Post-partum haemorrhage is a real complication that can happen in any case, my point is obstetric practices can often put women at greater risk of such things, despite the fact they claim to make birth "safer".
• 

  familycomesfirst4

  Stuckinlimbo, would you say you are more in favor with 'midwife' types of births? My wife has spoken with one, and the midwife spoke alot like this. It's something we're considering (she more than I).