VI: ....JWs are forbidden from using whole blood unless it comes from cows
Unless, of course the HLC arranges for the compassionate use of the artificial blood made from human blood, Polyheme. Which they have done on occasion
the u.k. to start trials in a new synthetic blood substitute.
all previous versions have failed to gain regulatory approval, but perhaps this one will offer a way out for jehovah's witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i7ouuzbg4c.
VI: ....JWs are forbidden from using whole blood unless it comes from cows
Unless, of course the HLC arranges for the compassionate use of the artificial blood made from human blood, Polyheme. Which they have done on occasion
the u.k. to start trials in a new synthetic blood substitute.
all previous versions have failed to gain regulatory approval, but perhaps this one will offer a way out for jehovah's witnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i7ouuzbg4c.
So now we have a possible reason for the recent push to have those DPA documents signed and on file
Thanks for posting this Lee
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.
Cool, Fisherguy.
Millie, I have been thinking some more about what you said and I think that you have highlighted another problem with this study. It doesn't extrapolate well to a different geographical population. It has little comparison value to populations with different resources.
Why this is important is because Shannon Farmer and Axel Hoffman, et al, from the SABM crew, used this study to write an article, in 2009, that they used to promote and establish the blood management program in Australia. And...it also was cited in the European guidelines for blood management
jehovah's witnesses post 'anti-gay' 'harness your habits' leaflet in north devon.
devon and cornwall police have said a leaflet posted through doors in north devon isn't a crime – despite it advising gay people to "control their urges".the leaflet, entitled "how to harness your habits", was distributed in north devon by jehovah's witnesses and contains an article asking "what does the bible say about homosexuality?
"in it, the religious group states that "rejecting homosexuality" is completely different to "rejecting people of a different skin colour" and says their views are the same as people who "view smoking as harmful and even repugnant".it also compares gay people to animals, but says "unlike animals, they can choose not to act on their impulses".the journal was contacted by a reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, who felt "belittled" by the leaflet.
millie: I am searching for the right way to say someone gay or hetero, someone male or female - doesnt matter - who is basically standing outside the long arm of the law (in this case a judicial committee) because they are not doing anything that can be used as a technicality against them.
Haha, Millie! We used to call that being in the closet. Has it changed?
Maybe in JW land it has another term...celibate person seems close. Sorta like the Catholic monks, I guess
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