Yes, Lee, this does seem to have the appearance of being a "good article".
I spent some time trying to track down the authors and trying to figure out why the article was written in the first place.
A couple things seem a bit "off" to me.
First, the little plug at the end of the article says this:
This study, Treatment of individuals who cannot receive blood products for religious or other reasons was recently published by Carlton D. Scharman, Joseph J. Shatzel, Thomas G. DeLoughery in the American Journal of Hematology.
The medical doctors who are purported to have authored this article, would and should know that this article is not a study, isn't even close to being a study, and it doesn't even follow proper referencing and sourcing for the material that they have presented. A doctor that is worth even a tiny bit of their salt should and would use good references. These authors didn't. They didn't reference one single tiny little bit of information that they so readily put out there for the public to lap up and consume.
I am going to bet money on this (if anybody wants to take me up on it and if they are okay with a tiny little bet just cause I am poor) and I am going to take a "shot in the dark" and say that this is a fluff piece generated by Jehovah's Witnesses themselves who have a special interest in the world of "bloodless medicine". JWs are notorious, especially in the world of blood, for soliciting the propaganda surrounding their medical investments
Moreover, OrphanCrow would have something to say about the claimed survival rates of JWs in the study cited. Little wonder the survival rates were high because the bloodless procedures were for elective surgery where preparation is paramount .
Okay, Steve, I will say something. What I can say about the "study cited" is that the study isn't cited at all. Not one citation in the whole article. What I can say about the "study cited" is absolutely nothing at all. The "doctors" who wrote this article didn't bother to cite anything - they just threw stuff out there and expected the reader to accept whatever they are writing. Good writing that offers solid information does not take that approach.
You are correct in that so-called "bloodless surgeries" conducted on JWs are done on patients who are in better health than those who undergo conventional surgery. That is a known fact.
Here is something else that is a red-flag to me when reading this article. Not once do the authors talk about any of the risks or side effects of so-called "bloodless medicine"
And another thing (this is actually the biggest 'thing' that gets my attention...)
Does anyone remember that court case a few months back where the court was unconvinced that "bloodless medicine" and/or "bloodless surgery" even existed? In fact, the court decided that the use of those terms was meaningless and that the field of "bloodless medicine" didn't even exist.
That last point is the final straw that makes me take the position that this article has been generated by JWs who have a special interest in keeping the bloodless myth alive when it is actually dead in the water