This is why I don't like transfusions.......

by VioletAnai 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ItsJustlittleoldme

  To answer your question LittleOlMe.....

  If the GB were ever to change this policy, it wouldn't affect me in any way. I have had numerous discussions with my family, mostly to do with organ transplants. While they aren't condemned by the GB, I wouldn't personally want someone elses organ inside me, family or not. It is the same with blood. I don't want someone else's blood intermingling with me....my blood and tissue is very personal to me, I wouldn't want it contimated with someone else.

  I, too, once had to make a choice on taking blood, when I was a teen, but I chose not too, becos it made me physically sick to the stomach to think about such a thing. There are amazing things they can do with volumes in the body where no blood is needed, just as long as there is enough volume in the body, to carry more red cells to where they need to go. So we now have this risk free procedure vs unreliably-screened blood. Why take an unnecessary risk like that? Especially when the medical profession says we don't have to anymore.

  So, my decision is definitely NOT motivated by a few silly old gits who are out of touch with the real world. How can I put faith in those silly old gits when they've destroyed mine and countless other lives with their two-witness policy.

  I, in that case, applaud your decision, and more importantly, the decision is based on your own conscience, not that of the GB's doctrine which we all know can (and probably will) change in the future..

  Congratulations, you have made a decision for yourself that is a truth to you, and no-one, not even the GB can take that away from you. It's a very liberating feeling making a decision for oneself that you know is totally your own decision, and no-one can change that decision!

  I am also very sorry to hear that you consider your life to be 'destroyed'. I will say a prayer that you can overcome your anger/hurt and get on with the business of living once again. Do you care to talk about it?

  Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 1 July 2002 23:16:25

  Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 1 July 2002 23:16:41
• 

  VioletAnai

  Why thank you!

  Oh, it's the pain I've endured in my life that gets me down the most....not so much as my life has been destroyed, as I can always find ways to make it better...but sometimes I get down....especially with skeptical people and ones who only hear what they want to hear......

  Feel free to email anytime, I've always considered myself to be a pretty good shoulder to cry on and I TRY every hard not to be biased......so if you ever need a lift, drop me a line......

  Edited by - Violetanai on 1 July 2002 23:24:41
• 

  COMF

  So in the end, you may have recovered from a life-threatening op, but for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, you now have to deal with Hep C....that sucks.

  That's right. Go ahead and die, y'all. Who wants to live anyway?
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Any medical procedure includes risk, and everyone should try to be an informed consumer. The major point is that the decision should be yours and yours alone....especially on something as tenuous as blood transfusions.

  I, too, was faced the the necessity of a blood transfusion when I was 22. I, being an active JW, refused. I don't regret my decision, and if I were in a similar circumstance today, I would probably do the same thing.

  My father, however, was in a situation where it was 100 percent certain that he would die without blood, and 100 percent certain that he would live if he had a transfusion. He developed a small fissure in his intestinal wall while he was on blood thinners for a heart condition. His blood would not clot even though they tried every known treatment available, and he was bleeding to death.

  He decided to take the blood, and his decision was devastating to my mother even though she was also relieved that he pulled through. The point is, however, that in spite of his being JW (for just a short time, actually), he was courageous enough to make the decision on his own.
• 

  hawkaw

  Right on RhW

  Fully informed (informed conscent) on what the advantages and disadvantages are on blood transfusions or any therapy is very important. This is something completely missing in the WTS and infact the WTS tries to "scare" people into not having a transfusion of certain banned therapies while having no problems allowing other blood transfusions.

  Violet's decision is a person decison. But no matter what, I hope it is an INFORMED decision. Based on the orginal post on this thread, I suspect that Violet has very little understanding about blood transfusion therapy. Maybe Violet does but again the initial post tends to to say NO.

  In any event Violet has made a "choice" on his/her own with respect to this type of therapy and has even made a decision in the therapy of organ transplantation. But is it an informed choice where Violet has applied critical thinking and reading skills???? I don't know. Only Violet can answer that.

  I do wonder if VioletAnai has ever had a tetnus shot? I wonder if Violet will allow a skin graft for a burn knowing skin is an organ too. I would love to know. The answers would tell me a lot about VioletAnai's "informed choice".

  hawk
• 

  Nowfree

  Violet

  What would you do if your child needed a blood transfusion - a child does not have the same volume of blood as an adult, and therefore to thin the blood sufficiently to prime a heart bypass machine (for example), would thin the blood too much.

  One solution the Society give is injection of erythropoetin. However, if you gave a child erythropoetin to increase the productino of red blood cells , the blood clotting factor would obviously rise and you risk the clot causing a blockage in the heart or brain.

  A child does not have sufficient volume to be able to transfuse and store blood for their own operation.

  I appreciate that in the USA the method of collecting blood is different from the UK. In the UK there is a higher chance of dying from playing football than there is if catching a disease from a blood transfusion, but then maybe our methods of screening and storage are far tighter.

  But then we are coming down to the reason behind WHY blood is being refused in the first place. For religious or personal beliefs. Believe me they are totally different. Especially when sitting in a paediatric cardiothoracic ward with a newborn baby with severe heart problems.

  Just my thoughts.

  Nowfree
• 

  hawkaw

  Actually Nowfree, the chances are remarkably low in the USA and of course in Canada.

  http://www.ajwrb.org/science/consumer.shtml

  In 1983 the odds were 1:100 to get AIDS. By the "dated" figure from the 1999 consumer reports listed at AJWRB, the odds have improved to about 1:676,000 for AIDs. Thus, you will die in a plane crash or get into an accident on the way to the hospital by Ambulance before getting nailed with AIDs. The figures now are even better. In Canada, we are better than 1:1,000,000. By 1999, Hep C improved to 1:103,000 but of course this is way way better now.

  Quite frankly the pathogin crisis is very rare now. Also noted in the article is how easy the system can be made to check for new pathogins etc. when the need arises. Something few HLC people ever talk about.

  hawk
• 

  Nowfree

  Hawkaw,

  I wasn't intend to criticise the transfusion safety record in USA, just trying to make the point that Violet is making her choice bearing in mind that she would be accepting blood in USA. I am making mine, knowing I would receive blood in the UK.

  Different countries have different screening methods - not saying any of them are necessarily better or worse than others.

  Nowfree