No Blood for Baby

Kenneson

Rosemary Soto, a premature baby, who had been ordered a blood transfusion by a judge, went home yesterday. Turns out, she didn't need it after all. Instead, doctors administered erythropoietin therapy, which helped her body produce more blood cells. The treatment is being hailed by her parents and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Kenneson

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news

Scroll down to More Top Stories and click on "Premature baby goes home--without blood transfusion" by James Miller

J_Dubble_Agent_007

Just thinkin.................what if that baby DID in actual fact need a blood transfusion? Mmmmmmmm

outnfree

I am truly happy for the baby and her parents.

Celebrate LIFE!!!! is my motto. (which means had Rosemary needed a blood transfusion, respect the life that is in HER, and give her the blood or any fraction thereof. )

out

outnfree

and isn't it nice, that after taking the precaution of getting the court order to allow Rosemary to be transfused, the doctors respected the parents' wishes as far as possible in her treatment plan?

Seems like Rosemary is the preemie exception to the rule, though, for this type of therapy.

Bodhisattva

I'm very happy for this family, but saddened because I know that this will enter the witness propaganda channel and come out twisted. The use of EPO, for instance, shows a great deal of trust in medical science, so may be omitted in the telling. The time is likely to be compressed.

That is exactly what happened in the case of Norman Lucas, the C.O. in Israel who had multiple-bypass surgery. He built up his RBC count for months with EPO and a strict diet before the operation, and took months to recover. When the story was told at Bethel, it was emergency surgery, and no difficulty in recovery was mentioned.

But that shouldn't surprise us when the Society makes disingenuous statements about people who get blood transfusions having longer hospital stays. If anything, people who refuse blood often are in the hospital longer than others who undergo the same routines, because they usually must wait for their blood counts to return to acceptable levels. But if you do not compare people undergoing the same routine, it is easy to allege that no blood equals faster recovery.

Imagine if the statistics included just four cases: A JW who has bypass surgery and is in the hospital for eight days (a long stay!) after to be ready for discharge (his frequent outpatient visits during a longer actual recovery period are not counted). A non-JW has similar surgery, with blood transfusions, perhaps getting out after four days. Two others spend a single night in the hospital with food poisoning. No blood = (8+1+1)/3 = 3.33 days; with blood = 4 days. Tada! No blood means faster recovery time. If you don't think that the WTS is this sneaky, ask yourself why they never even say "for similar cases" when asserting that patients who don't have blood transfusions recover faster.

The god of the dolphins has flippers.

RN

J Dubble Agent,

A court order had been issued, I think if the doctor saw the situation going south, he would have transfused. The state of Florida set the precedent many years ago that when a minor needs transfusion therapy, court orders are issued to give the medical decision making to the hospitals. It's virtually useless to try and fight it.

RN

J_Dubble_Agent_007

RN

Thank God for that state's wisdom.

Now why can't all countries adopt that stance?

One day, maybe one day.

007

Scully

Just another interesting hypocritical contradiction.

The baby didn't receive a blood TRANSFUSION because the WTS says it's wrong.

She did receive a blood PRODUCT which the WTS says is OK.

<eyeroll>
Love, Scully

No Blood for Baby

Share this