the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Sorry, Millie...I meant to add that your observations are valid and do reveal what could easily account for the results.
It is just that the reasons don't contribute to the validity of the study overall. It just explains the mistake in methodology and reveals the underlying bias of the authors and a possible motivation for the study being undertaken
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
You are welcome Fisherman.
Don't worry about the copyright stuff. I sleep well at night.
None of the material I posted on this thread is in violation of copyright - it is freely available online for public consumption. It is a non issue
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Sokay, Millie. All discussion is valid.
I understand now where you are coming from.
My question, then, is this: if the antibiotic scarcity is an issue, why did the paper not address it?
And, regardless, even if that were the case, that the study dealt with indigent women...we already know that the JW women were NOT indigent. Bloodless surgery would be an additional cost from conventional methods of surgery in that environment. If a woman could not afford simple antibiotics, it would seem unlikely that she would be able to afford the extra care that goes along with bloodless methods. And, the paper did not identify lack of funds as the cause for the death in the noblood group like they did with the blood group deaths
The sample groups were not evenly matched. It is likely that there are other, inherent, problems in the cross matching.
The extra care taken with the no blood patients is detailed but the care for the transfused patients has little to no detail. And, we already know that it was substandard. 6 patients died when medication was held back for nonpayment.
Care cannot be measured on economical value of the patient. That is a huge ethical issue
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
scratchme: What I do know now that I work in the medical industry, is that there have been a number of advances and changes in operating and using several procedures without the use of blood, but the JWs have absolutely nothing to do with it.
I am discovering the same thing to a certain extent.
For example, I am halfway through reading Denton Cooley's memoirs and finding out that the JWs had far less credit for some of the advances they try to claim were because of them, than what actually happened, according to Cooley.
And yet, if you read any amounts of the promotional material put out by the SABM and the HLC fellows, along with the textbook material for blood management, the Jehovah's Witness experience is set up as the 'gold standard' without giving credit to the many, many non-JWs who underwent the procedures so that they could benefit.
Without blood transfusions, surgery would never have advanced to the level it has. And the WT/HLC has the gall to refer to bloodless surgery as the 'golden standard' of care
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
And while I am at it...a word or two about patient #7 who died from the transfused group
One patient died of disseminated intravascular coagulation.
Disseminated intravascular coagulation can be caused by the following:
Risk factors for DIC include:In spite of this rare disorder possibly being a transfusion reaction, the study does not state this to be the case. Instead, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. There is no cause or further information offered about this death.
Blood transfusion reaction
Cancer, especially certain types of leukemia
Inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis)
Infection in the blood, especially by bacteria or fungus
Liver disease
Pregnancy complications (such as placenta that is left behind after delivery)
Recent surgery or anesthesia
Severe tissue injury (as in burns and head injury)
Large hemangioma (a blood vessel that is not formed properly)
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Yes, nugget. They used patient files from an 6 year span.
They give little information on the selection process. Not enough to make an informed decision about the control of variables. The procedures weren't even the same - some women had tubal ligations, some didn't...some had partial hysterectomies...
But they were careful to include this information about the noblood group:
We observed that the guidelines were followed in
the care of the patients in our series. These included documented
evidence, for example a durable power of attorney
(DPA) which is a living will stating that the patient will not
accept blood transfusion even in the event of life-threatening
bleeding. Photocopies of the DPA card were observed
in the case notes of the JW patients who were not transfused
and its contents were respected.
It's too bad they didn't have guidelines for establishing good care for the transfused patients to ensure they received antibiotics. Because this is a retrospective study, it would seem that those patients who did not receive an adequate level of care should be excluded from the study.
Once that happens, the statistics dramatically change
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
steve2: This points to the study being deeply flawed.
Deeply.
I'm surprised it was published in the first place - or that the authors didn't acknowledge its limitations regarding viability of nontransfusion outcomes. Given the consequences, that is an extraordinary failure on the authors' part.
Unfortunately, the scientific/medical world is not a clean world. Remember the fraudulent hetastarch researcher? Joachim Boldt? The WT "expert" who is blacklisted all over the place?
Lots of studies get past ethic boards and peer review. It is an ongoing problem for scientists right now, especially with the surge that digital transmission has allowed. The studies being released have created an explosion in material that is difficult to police and evaluate.
This is a website that attempts to monitor bad science:
I am not surprised - this is typical for what I would expect the bloodless world to use as their "evidence based research".
Quack science. A hundred years ago, it was a radio active belt and a wooden box with wires coming out of it that the WTS promoted. Today...it is bloodless surgery
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Thanks, Nonnie.
I usually find it easier to deal with the casualties of the JW blood ban from the distance of medical studies and legal cases. Personal stories can sometimes rock my world too much...hard to handle too much real pain.
It is unbelievable as to how many of the JW deaths are recorded as statistics in the scientific literature. And my mind boggles at the numbers of those not published.
This particular study unsettled me, though, Usually it is the JW women (or children or men) who died from refusing blood that are on my mind when I close my eyes at night. This time, all I could think about were the 6 women who couldn't afford antibiotics, and instead, ended up as statistics to be included in a study to promote the JW elite brand of medicine: their technologically rich, bloodless world
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
dubstepped: I'm no scientist, but isn't that sample size way too small to be conclusive in any manner? Not to mention the astute observation as to the real cause of death.
I'm not a scientist either. But I did really like the research methodology class I took when I was in university. My professor, ol' Bernie, would have had a heyday with this study. He would have got a full, entertaining, 3 hours of critique out of this one study alone, I am sure.
20 is a small sample size. I don't know if it is sufficient. I would be more concerned with the differing sample sizes and the inherent statistical problems that arise when comparing such groups.
As well as the inability to control for external factors. Far too many variables between groups with the most obvious one of all - economic status that affects the level of care.
After approval of the protocol by the Ethics and Investigation
Committee, we examined the ward records, operating
room records and case files of all patients who underwent
emergency laparotomies for ruptured uterus at the Abia
State University Teaching Hospital between 1 January
2000 and 31 December 2006. Patients who were haemodynamically
stable at presentation were excluded from the
study. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of ruptured
uterus with clinical features of hypovolaemic shock or
blood pressure of less than 90/60 mmHg, and a preoperative
haemoglobin concentration of 8 g/dl or less. Twenty
such patients who were of the Jehovah’s Witness sect and
who refused blood transfusion were identified. Another 45
patients (made up of 2 JW and 43 non JW) who accepted
blood transfusions were identiWed. Both groups were evaluated
for various obstetric and demographic variables: age,
parity, gestational age at delivery, placental location, and
number of previous cesarean deliveries.
The authors make that last statement but they don't provide the data to support any comparative conclusions about those variables. They just simply say the groups were evaluated. And....??? Why can't I see that data?
the wt has promoted bloodless surgery as a viable (and better) alternative to surgery with blood transfusions.. i have found a medical study that has been used to back up these "evidence based" claims.
the title of the article is lessons learned from the outcome of bloodless emergency.
these mostly indigent patients died of peritonitis becauseof delays in payment for antibiotics.
Good questions and observations, Millie and nugget.
If you download the study and go over it, there are a lot of other questions that arise about sample group selection and comparisons.
The authors claim that demographics were analyzed between the groups, but if so, why this discrepancy with socio-economic status?
There is very little data included in the study and several statements that the authors make are unsubstantiated.
It is clearly biased and contains questionable conclusions
millie: Is this because of poor priorities?
That is a moral question and not valid to be brought into the equation when analyzing results. Indigent is not a moral position even though some authors would like to subtly use it as one - it is a position defined by economic situation.
Millie, your query, I think, is exactly the one that the authors want you to make
