Children Given Blood Covertly.

by Englishman 20 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Englishman

  Just recently, I've been in some business discussions with a paediatrician who works away in a large city hospital. We've got on pretty well, and, our business negotiations having come to an end, we sat down this morning to have a cup of coffee and a chat.

  Somehow or other, the subject of JW's came up. The paediatrician then told me that he/she had already had several encounters with JW's and was aware of the WT's stance on blood and their permitting of certain substances being used. He/she then went on about how intransigent he/she found the JW's to be over the blood issue. I said that it must be awful for a child to die on the operating table for lack of blood. Then, he/ she responded with something that just astounded me:

  This was it: In the UK, he/she claimed that few children would ever die during surgery because of the lack of blood. Surgeons, I was told, regularly quietly dismiss demands for blood free surgery and simply go ahead and give blood if they feel that this would be of some benefit to the child. They give nodding lip service to the parent and just go ahead anyway. Even if the child was not in a particularly threatening situation, UK surgeons will pooh pooh the blood ban and go ahead and use it regardless, operating a "what they don't know won't hurt them" policy.

  So when JW's see their sick child post surgery without a blood bag hanging by the bed, they will never know that their child has probably had a couple of hundred milli-litres of blood given intravenously while the child was unconscious on the operating table.

  Englishman.
• 

  RunningMan

  I somehow doubt that this is the case in North America. If it ever got found out (and there are multiple people in the O.R. to leak it) the lawsuits would be devastating.

  However, I have no doubt that many JWs covertly agree to allow blood when the chips are down. Four years ago, my son had emergency surgery. When the nurse was filling out the release form, there was a question on religion. We answered "Jehovah's Witness", to which she replied "So, that means you do not want blood?" My answer was "That's right. But if it becomes absolutely necessary, ask us again." She seemed to understand perfectly. I suspect we weren't the first.
• 

  ozziepost

  I can't imagine this happening in the litigious downunder. However, one Health Department official told me that their experience was that in the main JW parents gave the impression that they would be happy to have the decision taken out of their hands.
• 

  tijkmo

  well frankly i think that is an outrageous admission..whether it is true or not..
• 

  Englishman

  I did raise the matter of surgeons being sued. My contact said that in all probabilty no-one other than the surgeon would know about the no-blood, and as operating theatres resembled a a bloody pig slaughter house after an op, the clean up people would take away the evidence within minutes anyway. Few people would know there was an issue, and those in the know wouldn't gave a hoot.

  Englishman.
• 

  Mary

  Surgeons, I was told, regularly quietly dismiss demands for blood free surgery and simply go ahead and give blood if they feel that this would be of some benefit to the child. They give nodding lip service to the parent and just go ahead anyway. Even if the child was not in a particularly threatening situation, UK surgeons will pooh pooh the blood ban and go ahead and use it regardless, operating a "what they don't know won't hurt them" policy.

  I would be stunned if this happened in Canada as the doctor's hands are tied and they would be facing enormous lawsuits if it were ever found out. I find it quite disgusting that they would go ahead and give a transfusion to a child "even if the child was not in a particularly threatening situation." It's one thing to go ahead and do it if the child will die without one; it's quite something else to disregard someone's wishes merely to flex their own medicle muscles.

  When the nurse was filling out the release form, there was a question on religion. We answered "Jehovah's Witness", to which she replied "So, that means you do not want blood?" My answer was "That's right. But if it becomes absolutely necessary, ask us again." She seemed to understand perfectly. I suspect we weren't the first.

  That goes ditto for me. I had major surgery a couple of years ago and so of course the blood issue came up. I told the doctors I would prefer to avoid a blood transfusion, but if push came to shove and they could see I would die without one, then to go ahead and give me one. I also told them that for obvious reasons, this information had to be kept confidential. They completely understood and said that they've had many Witnesses in the same boat: if it means their children's lives, they'll quietly accept a transfusion.
• 

  diamondblue1974

  Whilst I agree with the sentiments of the surgeon its a hell of an admission to make really isnt it? the legalities could be horrendous and the trust would probably be sued (if the parents or the child were ever to find out) for assault or battery not to mention the potential human rights claim they would face...

  Horrendous when you stop to think.

  DB74
• 

  BluesBrother

  Perhaps 15 years ago, a 'sister' was facing surgery. Because they had a Private Medical Insurance plan she had a proper discussion with the surgeon and stated her objection to blood "In any circumstances". He said that of course she could sign the disclaimer form but "Do not worry Mrs ..............., we will not let you die"

  It was clearly a "nod and a wink" to say that they would use blood if they felt it warranted, whatever her stated views were. When she queried this, he became more open and admitted that he had transfused blood to Witnessess without their ever knowing about it.

  She did not proceed with him, went to a major hospital where she was given firm assurances, had the op and recovered well.
• 

  rebel8

  I can't speak to what happens in the UK, but I work at a US hospital. Blood is so super-regulated that it would be virtually impossible to do it covertly. It would require a large conspiracy of dozens of people.

  Depending on the insurance plan, the blood may show up on an itemized bill the patient would receive. It's all over the medical record too. There are signed consent forms that may mention the possibility of a blood transfusion if one is expected. There are special consent forms for those who refuse blood. Patients/guardians have a right to receive copies of their medical records, so they'd be able to easily find out.
• 

  Buster

  In the case of young children: In the US, I agree that a Dr. would not likely deliver blood covertly. But it is a routine matter for a Dr. to get a court order overruling the wishes of lunatic parents. And in the case of an emergency, I picture a surgeon doing what he thinks is best. I do not picture a Dr. letting a young child die on the table - no way.

  In the case of older children echoing their parents lunacy: I could see a surgeon feeling bound by the requests of the patient and family - but not necessarily.