Lee - thanks.
Mexico News Daily: Blood transfusion case before Supreme Court
by AndersonsInfo 41 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
problemaddict 2
Imagine being a mother with a 5 year old that has Leukemia. Terrible already.
Now imagine that while treatable, the treatment is a no-go for your religion.
Now you are refusing, and using lawyers and the state regional authorities to essentially argue for your right to refuse what might very well be the only way your child will live further. You probably don't understand much of what is going on. (don't know where the father is because he isn't mentioned).
You are going to court for the right to kill your 5 year old, while not wanting your 5 year old to die.
She may never forgive herself.
-
TD
Everything considered, blood is the easy choice for a doctor, no-blood management is harder and more work. Doctors also look at what is more profitable.
Are you sure you understand how leukemia is treated?
The loss of JW patients is routine. So much so that articles have been published in professional journals to help medical personal deal with the resultant feelings of guilt, frustration and anger.
-
Fisherman
Are you sure you understand how leukemia is treated
@TD: My statement is true whether or not blood is the most effective or the only effective treatment for any given illness --but I was not referring specifically to lukemia in my post. If a person looses about 20 percent of blood volume for example, they can go into hypovolemic shock, blood expanders can help to a point but there comes a point where only blood will help.
Blood harvested for BT should come from non infected, willing donors that are not killed for the product; and since blood is being used to save a human life and no harm is being done to another person, it is easy to feel that a BT is not wrong. But is there ever a point where a person should feel that it is wrong to commit an act for the purpose of self preservation?
https://transfusionfree.usc.edu/case-studies/case-study-transfusion-free-leukemia-treatment/
-
OrphanCrow
Everything considered, blood is the easy choice for a doctor, no-blood management is harder and more work. Doctors also look at what is more profitable.
Everything considered, blood is the most effective and best choice for a doctor (and for the patient). No blood management is less effective and does not work as fast or as well as blood does.
-
Fisherman
(and for the patient) -OC
Not always. For example, a friend received a routine BT during surgery, it was infected, it was horrible to see her dying.
-
TD
Fisherman
My statement is true whether or not blood is the most effective or the only effective treatment...
Transfusion is actually not a treatment for leukemia in and of itself, which makes the situation at hand a little different than what I think you may be talking about.
Various types of transfusion very often becomes necessary as a consequence of treatments that either stunt or entirely stop the production of blood in the patient's own body.
No blood management becomes inapplicable at that point. --You can't manage what's not there.
-
Fisherman
Transfusion is actually not a treatment for leukemia in and of itself
Academic discussion.
No blood management becomes inapplicable at that point. --You can't manage what's not there.
"No blood management" becomes 'inapplicable' at any point in treating any health problem where blood is the one and only efficacious treatment, as for example treating the consequences of chemo given to a patient with leukemia in a given case.
-
TD
It's only academic if we're not discussing leukemia, which again is the case at hand.
On the other hand, if we are, then it is extremely relevant as the purpose and type of transfusion has a direct bearing on what, if any alternatives would come under consideration, which in turn, would speak directly to the question(s) of whether they are "more work" and/or "less profitable."
-
Fisherman
if any alternatives would come under consideration, which in turn, would speak directly to the question(s) of whether they are "more work" and/or "less profitable."
"You can't treat leukemia without blood products."
As it relates to the specific case on this thread, the Court decided that doctors should try alternatives first. Relating to the treatment of leukemia, as a general rule, when chemo is used to treat the disease, blood is also used to treat the effects that chemo has on the blood of the patient, as you already explained. As my linked article shows, some JW survive the chemo without blood, others die, but others die too even with the blood. Also as it relates to leukemia, at this time, not based on a doctor's opinion but according to standard medical treatment for the disease, they use blood, not because it is more propfitable or easier but because they know it works- at least short term. Long term, every 9 minutes someone dies from leukemia, even those with the blood transfusions, whether you want to call the BT treatment for leukemia or for chemo.