stan livedeath: only this week i read--on this site--a figure of 50,000 have died through refusing blood. ive queried that now--and before. one death is one too many----50,000 is just beyond belief.
HI Stan,
Not sure what you read about 50,000 deaths or from where you read it, but not too long ago I presented an estimate of mortality suffered among the JW population between years 1961 and 2012. The number was c. 50,000. This figure is an extrapolation of a good sample size consisting of more than half the number of JWs in New Zealand. As it turned out a review of medical records showed this patient segment suffered a horrendous level of mortality related directly to refusal of red cell transfusion. The number of JWs (the sample) in the regions which medical records were gathered compared with the population of that sample that suffered death due to refusing red cells transfusion is astounding.
For a number of reasons this is a conservative estimate. For examples: 1) Though the estimate of 50,000 is based on the sample size of all JWs living in the New Zealand regions from which records were gathered these medical records did not include all deaths among JWs attributed to refusing red cells transfusion. There is no doubt that mortality occurred due to the same refusal of red cells in other trauma centers in the sample regions, but my estimate does not include this statistically because the documents were not retrieved to evidence those deaths. 2) Though my estimate covers years 1961-2012 the medical document retrieval only covered years 1998-2007, and mortality related to refusing red cell transfusion is arguably less in these latter years due to other medical technological advances. 3) My estimate (50,000) is based on a review of medical records in one of the most advanced medical regions of the world, which means if anything we'd expect mortality due to refusing red cell transfusion to be higher in less developed societies which are far more dependent on older medical means and methods to prevent mortality (not to mention morbidity).
A few years ago there was a rather drawn out discussion on this forum about this extrapolated figure of 50,000. Though the discussion raged on-and-on for many pages it was evident (to me) that the statistical sample vs. population was understood by very few for what each represents. I'm sharing this history for sake of any reader who wants to go back and find the discussion to read over it for themselves and make of it whatever they will. It's there for those who want to see how, at that time, readers here responded to the information. My own view is that nothing in the discussion ever came close to refuting the estimate. For that matter I'd opine there was never anything presented that really challenged the figure of 50,000. Mostly what I read was objections based on misunderstandings about how to use hard numbers for purposes of extrapolation. Perhaps the most significant mistake made by participants in that discussion was confusing sample with population of a sample. But the discussion is there for anyone who wants to go back and find it.
PS: I was encouraged to contact authors of the underlying review of medical records from which my extrapolation was made. The primary author responded to me saying that if anything my estimate was low.
Link to original article: More than 50,000 dead
___
