Are blood fractions safer than primary blood components?

by IT Support 22 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  IT Support

  I'm thinking through my new position on blood transfusions, and would appreciate your 'pearls of wisdom.'

  I now feel that, while a blood transfusion is still dangerous, I would accept it as a last resort, if all else failed. I would not die, or allow any of my family to die, for want of a transfusion of plasma, platelets, or red or white cells. These are the primary blood components the Society forbids JWs to receive (unless you live in Bulgaria).

  However, the Society teaches that blood fractions, derived from any primary blood component, is a matter of conscience. Is this because they are safer, less risky, than a transfusion of red or white cells, etc? Or because they are made from primary components, is there no difference?

  I've not had much success searching Google. If anyone has any medical knowledge, or knows where the information can be found, I'd be very grateful.

  Regards,

  Ken
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Yes they are safer. Pretty much "Fractions" are cooked and differented blood thats been washed in detergent.

  They mostly have no blood type and are universal (you could add a blood type to them but thats the medical equivalent of painting a concours d'élégance Delorean ).

  iN all reality the watchtower did the theolgical equivalent of the "94 Assault Weapon Ban". Making a long compicated system that bans complete guns with 4/4 regulated devices but allows you to buy separately what ever is missing from a gun 3/4 of these devices (I know it is not that gun termy).

  So you can basically have blood with out having blood. Which is stupid. I have never been a person for paper tigers. Especially if I am bleeding to death from its paper cuts.
• 

  blondie

  http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/crumbles.shtml

  This is a breakdown of the WTS "reasoning."

  An important point to keep in mind that most of these fractions (if not all) are made from stored blood and the WTS doctrine is that blood should be poured out not stored.

  HLC strategies

  http://www.ajwrb.org/newsmedia/media.shtml

  Do Jehovah's Witnesses Really Abstain From Blood?

  http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/abstain.shtml
• 

  TD

  XQ is correct. With plasma proteins ("fractions"), pathogenic inactivation can be achieved in a number of ways that are impossible with cellular components (e.g. UV & Heat treatments, Nanofilitration, etc.) So as long as proper protocols are followed, they are safer.

  However all plasma proteins are pooled biological products and because of this, they inherently share all the same potential risks as whole blood when and if they are improperly handled. In fact, the worst disasters that have befallen this branch of medicine have all involved the so-called "fractions."

  To cite two examples; more instances of HIV have arisen from the administration of factor VIII concentrates than all other blood components combined. A terrible outbreak of hepatitis during WWII involving over 28,000 servicemen was traced to 9 lots of improperly stored yellow fever vaccine. Both of these involved the use of "fractions."

  Everything in medicine boils down to risk vs. benefit. You stand roughly a 1 in 30,000 chance of not waking up from the anasthesia, but does this trouble you if the alternative is a ruptured appendix and a slow, painful death?
• 

  concerned mama

  Well put, TD.

  Please see point 12.
• 

  BluesBrother

  I do not recall the WTS ever saying that that blood fractions were safer than a real blood transfusion. Their change of policy is revision of "Scriptural understanding", rather than a medical stand.. Although I have read with interest the posts above.

  Good question, I am glad that you raised it.
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Not to correct blondie but I believe the stance of blood needing to be poured out is a sun set belief simular to the 42k years of creation.

  Another belief that parallels is the belief that a fraction shoundn't be used if it replicates the "life saving function" of a "primary" component.

  These beliefs are now defunct since june the NY brance decided to allow all fractions of any type or combo there of (they caught a hail storm of flack from the branches that held the former beliefs and didnot allow fractions). As well as issuing a gag order on the elder body, and service desk.

  As far as fraction biohazards think of it as drinking urine (no offense). Urine is a blood fraction. Fresh urine is sterile in a healthy person and no harm is done if you temporarilly ingest it. Now if the urine is allowed to set that is a really bad idea to drink it. Not only is it repugnant, but the ambient bacteria will turn it into a septic brew quickly because it contains lots of raw protiens (hence the classic gas station restroom smell). Likewise with other fractions they are not as stable a whole components (excluding plasma based ones) and provide raw food for almost anything fortunate to come into contact with them.
• 

  eyeslice

  This is a really interesting question and we probably need an expert (like Scully perhaps?) here. The Society used to make a bit of a point about the conclusion of the letter from the apostles - "if you keep these things, good health to you". (Acts 10:29).

  However, my understanding is that blood fractions are usually obtained from "pooled" blood sources. For example, a single dose of a blood clotting factor might have come from blood pooled from 200 or 300 blood donations. Hence the risk of contracting AIDs or CJD from a fraction could be potentially higher from a fraction than from the whole blood of 3 or 4 individuals in a transfusion of 3 or 4 units..

  Eyeslice
• 

  Axelspeed

  I believe it is very important not to get these issues mixed up. I recently had a hlc member state that the reason for the allowance for fractions was because of the safer procedures being used today. I pointed out that while that is true, the JW reason for not taking blood has always been stated to be built on the sacredness of blood, not the health benefits, and thus the need to pour it out to be returned to Jehovah". It has never been a stance built on the issue of health, though that has often been cited as a side benefit.

  True some individual JWs have used the "good health to you" at Acts 10:29 in their reasoning, and the society usually does not discourage it, but officially they have stated that that refers more to a sign off greeting that was used generally at that time.

  Always remind them that this is an issue of sacredness, not health, according to the society. To make this a health issue is to give wiggle room.

  Axelspeed
• 

  eyeslice

  Axelspeed - don't get me wrong on this - I am with you on this, it is not a question of good health.

  The point I was making is that although the Society has always made blood an issue of morality as opposed to health, the good health issue was seen as a positive side-effect if you like. But to my mind the fraction issue may indeed be more risky than whole blood transfusions.