This is not a new paper and has been discussed widely. It is interesting though.
Your body needs oxygen delivered to every cell every second for tissue to survive, only blood can do that, via haemoglobin, no alternative or synthetic replacement can do that or exists in Medical use or ever has. (Haemopure is made from Cow blood and some JW's have accepted it, it causes strokes, heart attacks and death so is banned from use for anyone other than JW's in some countries....again....it is made from blood, cow blood, it's not a synthetic invention of any kind).
Sometimes if you lose blood through injury or trauma or illness, you can buy time by stopping the bleeding as best as possible and introducing fluid (saline) into the vessels to keep the blood that is remaining flowing and circulating. At the end of the day however, if you lose enough blood that it acutely endangers your life via not being able to transport enough oxygen to your vital organs, only one fluid can potentially reverse the inevitable and keep you alive.........blood. If you add just more fluid it dilutes the haemoglobin and your body cant run off water in its veins and arteries, it needs blood. Water or anything else, cant carry oxygen to your organs and the organs, importantly your heart and brain can only survive several minutes without that oxygen delivery.
Blood comes with risks, it can carry disease, it can cause electrolyte imbalances and it can cause immune reactions amongst other issues, However when someone is dying and probability dictates that they will likely die without blood, it is obviously given and millions of lives are saved this way.
So how can this paper be interpreted? Firstly understand it, If someone needs blood to live and doesn't receive it ....they will die, Patients that live whilst declining transfusion either didn't need it or skated death by dropping their haemoglobin levels to the extreme and the body replaced them just in time, likely time bought by medical intervention. It's not up for debate remember.... if you lose your blood ....you die.... its essential. So these patients did not cross that line of needing blood to live, as they ...lived. It's not a clesr line by the way, everyones tolerance for blood loss is different. Wanting to keep people alive we stay on the side of caution, giving transfusions earlier than later as some people deteriorate far quicker than others.
The research (there are many similar studies and papers)
You will notice the Watchtower, repeatedly quote bloodless surgery papers, but they are all around the same time, all about cardiac surgery specifically and often taken wildly out of context or not explained at all sufficiently, going on to justify saying 'no to blood' as if it is a clinical mistake to accept a transfusion in all cases. The reality is, cardiac surgeons got into the habit of giving blood to their patients pre-operatively, knowing that they were going to cause bleeding in their procedures. This seemed logical and a prophylactic approach to an operation of major vessels with potential heavy bleeding. Why not top up the patient BEFORE the procedure or routinely after it, whether clinically needed or not? Of course, amongst these stats are patients who suffered major haemorrhage and required transfusions related to the procedure, but the research papers are about procedures where unnecessary blood transfusions were given to patients as a precautionary measure without evidence backing this approach.
Research showed that cardiac surgery with blood transfusions, when compared to patients who didn't receive blood was of poorer statistical outcome. Modern medicine, with hindsight says ....well obviously....blood has risks.
But it is important to ask what the data is actually saying. Giving blood when not needed can cause harm that is statistically evident when compared to those that declined it in cardiac surgery procedures.
To give context, blood is not unique or special in having risks....pick any medical intervention...they ALL do. Recent research shows that giving oxygen to someone having a heart attack if they dont need oxygen can cause a worse outcome for the patient. Yet go to a hospital and see hoe many people are kept alive with oxygen. Context is EVERYTHING.
Also, we must think deeper and critically appraise the data...were more refined, better, techniques used and developed for the people declining blood due to the lack of a transfusion option. Were the surgeons being more careful?Were the people who received blood transfusion during the procedure sicker, needing the blood and with expected worse outcomes from being sicker?
For me..... the research tells me that blood has risks previously not appreciated so acutely. It's as dangerous as giving oxygen or fluids or medication inappropriately when used without care. Despite this, when your life depends on a transfusion there is no alternative to blood. Also, there is no evidence in this paper that speaks on anything other than this specific procedure and the results specific to it, it has no say on the outcome of all the other procedures done with pre-operative blood.
I have prescribed blood and saved many lives, the heroes being those that selflessly donate it. Of course there are consequences to using it, within modern medicine the evidence is not surprising. The human body detects and reacts to anything foreign or unexpected. To take blood from human A, treat it, store it, put it in human B... of course there are going to be negative consequences in it's use. There is no medical intervention without consequence, be it oxygen, water, food, pills, joint replacements. I'd argue even the simple act of looking over a patient as a doctor has risks and consequences, raising the blood pressure, or an an examination that disrupts a fragile piece of anatomy or 'simple' X-ray imaging that inadvertently damages a tiny piece of DNA presenting as cancer ten years later.....they all have consequences. Blood transfusions are to be appreciated in this context.
As for the WT stance:
I have one question now, after 25 years a JW and many years in the medical field....
Jesus, when confronted about clearly breaking god's law, punishable by death, in order to eat, asked who wouldn't break the law, to save a lamb down a well on the sabbath? He then went on to say how the word of the law and it's principle should never be misunderstood, making clear the value of life over law.
How on earth can the governing body celebrate the faith of children and adults who have died in order to remain lawful as per the words of the law? Jesus literally advocated breaking the law to save life.........an animals life! The lamb wasn't even dying just risked dying, they could have saved it the very next day, but Jesus asked, who wouldn't break the law of god to save it THAT very day, just IN CASE the lamb died.
Now with all this context....
Your thoughts?.......
Be your own person, answerable for your own decisions and beliefs, founded in your own research and readings.
