Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Pudding]

@Deeje

When will the op ever provide details of the study in that video, for the process of peer-review?
A video explain the results of a study that blood transfusion is not completely life saving, the evidence is in the video, the medical professionals have explain the study's result in a video, why don't everyone believe them? The evidence is in the video, a very convincing evidence, a video...

Op please ask those medical professionals in that video to publicly provide the study into the process of peer-review to verify the validity of their study's result.

Op: (refuse to provide or making the study for peer-review to verify its validity) The medical professionals in a video say blood transfusion is not completely life saving, it's facts, how can any one don't believe what they say in a video? Obviously the video is fatcs, why don't everyone believe the video???

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje

When will the op ever provide details of the study in that video, for the process of peer-review?
A video explain the results of a study that blood transfusion is not completely life saving, the evidence is in the video, the medical professionals have explain the study's result in a video, why don't everyone believe them? The evidence is in the video, a very convincing evidence, a video...

Op please ask those medical professionals in that video to publicly provide the study into the process of peer-review to verify the validity of their study's result.

Op: (refuse to provide or making the study for peer-review to verify its validity) The medical professionals in a video say blood transfusion is not completely life saving, it's facts, how can any one don't believe what they say in a video? Obviously the video is fatcs, why don't everyone believe the video???

Please do a Google search on 'increased morbidity and mortality in blood transfusions'. There is a lot of information if you are really interested.
The medical profession is not notorious for being able to admit that they were wrong about something as routinely used as blood. They are coming to terms with the over-prescription of antibiotics and the emergence of superbugs which are now immune to all antibiotics. They are bracing for an epidemic of these superbugs for which they have no effective treatment.
Blood has been shown to be harmful in many cases, but it seems that doctors are slow to respond to the findings.

 

[Olinda]

Please do a Google search on 'increased morbidity and mortality in blood transfusions'. There is a lot of information if you are really interested.
The medical profession is not notorious for being able to admit that they were wrong about something as routinely used as blood. They are coming to terms with the over-prescription of antibiotics and the emergence of superbugs which are now immune to all antibiotics. They are bracing for an epidemic of these superbugs for which they have no effective treatment.
Blood has been shown to be harmful in many cases, but it seems that doctors are slow to respond to the findings.

Please do a Google search on 'increased morbidity and mortality in blood transfusions'. There is a lot of information if you are really interested.

Thanks, I did, and found this! source
It's a BJA research article entitled "What is really dangerous: anaemeia or transfusion"? and provides a balanced perspective with references to research.

From the link above (emphasis is mine):

Editor's key points

• Paradoxically, both anaemia and transfusion are independently associated with organ injury and increased morbidity.
• Further characterization of the mechanisms of injury is needed to appropriately balance these risks.
• Treatment strategies to optimize haematopoiesis, manipulate physiological responses, and minimize blood loss are necessary to improve outcomes in anaemic patients

So in summary, to transfuse or not should be a case by case informed decision.

The medical profession is not notorious for being able to admit that they were wrong about something as routinely used as blood.

Odd, then, that it's so easy to access this research, isn't it?

They are coming to terms with the over-prescription of antibiotics and the emergence of superbugs which are now immune to all antibiotics. They are bracing for an epidemic of these superbugs for which they have no effective treatment.

Interesting change of subject, and unusual for a jw to refer to the evolution of superbugs!

Here's a good article on the "Origin and Evolution of Superbugs "source

 

[Pudding]

Please do a Google search on 'increased morbidity and mortality in blood transfusions'. There is a lot of information if you are really interested.

When will you ever provide any peer review study to support your opinion that the video in op is facts?
If you can't then it's okay to admit it.

The medical profession is not notorious for being able to admit that they were wrong about something as routinely used as blood.

I haven't say they are notorious.

They are coming to terms with the over-prescription of antibiotics and the emergence of superbugs which are now immune to all antibiotics. They are bracing for an epidemic of these superbugs for which they have no effective treatment.
Blood has been shown to be harmful in many cases, but it seems that doctors are slow to respond to the findings.

Please provide peer review study to support your opinion that the video in op is facts to verify its validity.

 

[dianaiad]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. For those who believe that blood transfusions are the life saving procedure that they are claimed to be, please watch this video so that the facts can be brought to the public's attention. This is information provided by the Australian Government, not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

Saved mine. (shrug)

 

[Deeje]

Thanks, I did, and found this! source
It's a BJA research article entitled "What is really dangerous: anaemeia or transfusion"? and provides a balanced perspective with references to research.

From the link above (emphasis is mine):

So in summary, to transfuse or not should be a case by case informed decision.

Indeed. For those who have no problems with blood transfusion and who wish to ignore the warnings from specialists in that field of medicine, they will get no arguments from me because that isn't my choice. They can believe the warnings or ignore them. I am merely relating facts.

Odd, then, that it's so easy to access this research, isn't it?

Why is it odd? The dangers of blood transfusions have been published for decades. Its the reason why there are so many hospitals around the world dedicated to bloodless medicine. As I said, the medical profession does not take kindly to being told that they are wrong about a favored procedure.
If these specialist doctors admit, after all the studies published, that up to 88% of blood transfusions were not only unnecessary, but harmful, who wants to ignore that?

Interesting change of subject, and unusual for a jw to refer to the evolution of superbugs!

Why would we argue with mutations? It is simply adaptation within a species for its own preservation. All living things have the ability to adapt to a new environment. It's in their DNA.

Here's a good article on the "Origin and Evolution of Superbugs "source

And this is to support what argument?

 

[Deeje]

Saved mine. (shrug)

How do you know for sure?

I know many people personally who were told point blank that they would die without a blood transfusion...none of them did.
Doctors cannot say with any certainty who will live and who will die....they can only guess. They have also been trained to rely on blood as a treatment of choice, but they already know the dangers, yet they still use them. If you watched the video in the OP you will see clearly what happens to the human circulatory system when three units of stored blood have been administered to a patient compared with saline based volume expanders. The saline facilitated the delivery of remaining red cells whereas the blood actually hindered the delivery of red cells to the tissues and organs. These doctors are issuing a dire warning that the medical profession needs to take on board. It seems that the patients who took multiple units of blood survived in spite of the transfusions rather than because of them.....were you one of them?

 

[dianaiad]

How do you know for sure?

I know many people personally who were told point blank that they would die without a blood transfusion...none of them did.
Doctors cannot say with any certainty who will live and who will die....they can only guess. They have also been trained to rely on blood as a treatment of choice, but they already know the dangers, yet they still use them. If you watched the video in the OP you will see clearly what happens to the human circulatory system when three units of stored blood have been administered to a patient compared with saline based volume expanders. The saline facilitated the delivery of remaining red cells whereas the blood actually hindered the delivery of red cells to the tissues and organs. These doctors are issuing a dire warning that the medical profession needs to take on board. It seems that the patients who took multiple units of blood survived in spite of the transfusions rather than because of them.....were you one of them?

I have bone marrow cancer. Bone marrow manufactures blood. When one has a bone marrow transplant, it involves killing off the diseased marrow before getting a 'reboot' with new, healthy, bone marrow. In this case, my own. When one does not manufacture one's own blood cells, and one gets into trouble, then one requires blood, not 'saline expanders.' Now I have spoken to several Jehovah's Witnesses about this particular issue, and I get answers in three basic areas; 1: they haven't got a clue (I like these guys...my situation is unusual), 2. I'm damned, 3. I'm not--at least, not for that. For being a Mormon, though...(grin)

(shrug) I watched the OP video. I didn't put a great deal of stock in it. Or rather, I agree that blood substitutes can be a viable alternative, but there are situations in which blood IS the appropriate, and lifesaving, measure. I, at least, have had three more years of a very good life as a result, and when I relapse and have to do the transplant thing again, I expect to have more good years.

............and it will require someone else's blood to help me through it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some donors actually SELL their blood. Must be desperate people like
alcoholics, drug addicts, people in need of a few bucks for whatever reason.

I used to sell my plasma so I could have gas and food money. I wouldn't assume that people do such things for drugs or other bad things, because such places do tend to be very busy around Christmas, and for many it's just to have some spending money.

 

[Olinda]

Indeed. For those who have no problems with blood transfusion and who wish to ignore the warnings from specialists in that field of medicine, they will get no arguments from me because that isn't my choice. They can believe the warnings or ignore them. I am merely relating facts.

Why is it odd? The dangers of blood transfusions have been published for decades. Its the reason why there are so many hospitals around the world dedicated to bloodless medicine. As I said, the medical profession does not take kindly to being told that they are wrong about a favored procedure.
If these specialist doctors admit, after all the studies published, that up to 88% of blood transfusions we]re not only unnecessary, but harmful, who wants to ignore that?

Why would we argue with mutations? It is simply adaptation within a species for its own preservation. All living things have the ability to adapt to a new environment. It's in their DNA.
And this is to support what argument?

Indeed. For those who have no problems with blood transfusion and who wish to ignore the warnings from specialists in that field of medicine, they will get no arguments from me because that isn't my choice. They can believe the warnings or ignore them.

I'm confused. This is in reply to my statement "So in summary, to transfuse or not should be a case by case informed decision."? Do you seriously think making an informed decision is the same as "wish to ignore the warnings from specialists"?

I am merely relating facts.

My understanding is that you are merely drawing attention to a video on a 'for media' page.

Why is it odd? The dangers of blood transfusions have been published for decades.

They have, and that's why an informed decision is needed.

As I said, the medical profession does not take kindly to being told that they are wrong about a favored procedure.

And you have never backed it up with evidence.

If these specialist doctors admit, after all the studies published, that up to 88% of blood transfusions we]re not only unnecessary, but harmful, who wants to ignore that?

Sadly, I must refer you back to your own video, around 2:18 in. It clearly says that 59.3% of transfusions were "inappropriate", 28.95 "uncertain" and 11.8% "appropriate". How does that support your assertion that "up to 88% of transfusions were not only unnecessary but harmful"?
You seem such a nice person so I'll assume over eagerness to make your point.

Why would we argue with mutations? It is simply adaptation within a species for its own preservation. All living things have the ability to adapt to a new environment. It's in their DNA.
And this is to support what argument?

The supporting source was intended to show how much more than 'mutations' is involved in anti bacterial resistance.
And to tie it back into your thread, as you indicated that jws were spared the perils of blood transfusions by following their interpretation of God's command in the Bible, wouldn't it have been nice if God had also warned of the dangers of reliance on antibiotics?

 

[Deeje]

I have bone marrow cancer.

I am very sorry to hear that.

Bone marrow manufactures blood. When one has a bone marrow transplant, it involves killing off the diseased marrow before getting a 'reboot' with new, healthy, bone marrow. In this case, my own. When one does not manufacture one's own blood cells, and one gets into trouble, then one requires blood, not 'saline expanders.' Now I have spoken to several Jehovah's Witnesses about this particular issue, and I get answers in three basic areas; 1: they haven't got a clue (I like these guys...my situation is unusual)

Your situation is unusual but not one for which there is no recommendations. Here is our official stance on the matter of bone marrow transplants....

"The Bible states clearly that God’s servants must ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:28, 29; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16) But, since red cells originate in the red bone marrow, do the Scriptures class marrow with blood? No. In fact, animal marrow is spoken of like any other flesh that could be eaten. Isaiah 25:6 says that God will prepare for his people a banquet that includes “well-oiled dishes filled with marrow.” Normal slaughtering and drainage procedures never drain all blood cells from the marrow. Yet once a carcass is drained, then any of the tissue may be eaten, including the marrow.
Of course, marrow used in human marrow transplants is from live donors, and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood with it. Hence, the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether—to him—the bone-marrow graft would amount to simple flesh or would be unbled tissue. Additionally, since a marrow graft is a form of transplant, the Scriptural aspects of human organ transplants should be considered.
Finally, writing in Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (Update I, 1981, page 138), Dr. D. E. Thomas observes that “virtually all marrow transplant recipients will require platelet transfusions” and many are given “packed red blood cells.” So the Christian should consider what additional issues he would have to face if he submitted to a marrow transplant.—Proverbs 22:3.
Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter, the Bible’s comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide"

So for us, it is a conscience matter. We will not judge one another for a personal decision. These procedures were not available when the Bible was written so we have to use discernment and pray about it. If blood is required as a follow up, then for us we would not consent.

2. I'm damned

Since it was an offense punishable by death in Israel, to take blood into one's body in any form would have been a serious crime.

3. I'm not--at least, not for that. For being a Mormon, though...(grin)

That is whole other story...

(shrug) I watched the OP video. I didn't put a great deal of stock in it.

If you observed the cytoscope image of the patient with 3 units of transfused blood compared to the saline based plasma volume expander, I think that speaks for itself. The blood actually impeded oxygen delivery to the tissues and organs whereas the saline facilitated it.

Or rather, I agree that blood substitutes can be a viable alternative, but there are situations in which blood IS the appropriate, and lifesaving, measure.

With the techniques now available, there should be no need at all to use blood. These doctors confirm that even severe blood loss can be treated without resorting to transfusions.
These doctors are questioning the validity of using blood at all....so for us it is good news.

I, at least, have had three more years of a very good life as a result, and when I relapse and have to do the transplant thing again, I expect to have more good years.

............and it will require someone else's blood to help me through it.

That is of course your own choice. I am glad to hear that your treatments have worked to your advantage. Was your donor a close relative or someone on a register?

 

[Deeje]

I'm confused. This is in reply to my statement "So in summary, to transfuse or not should be a case by case informed decision."? Do you seriously think making an informed decision is the same as "wish to ignore the warnings from specialists"?

Hmmmm....since the warnings from these specialists forms part of the information that leads to an informed decision, I am bemused by your comment....?

My understanding is that you are merely drawing attention to a video on a 'for media' page.

It is an Australian Government Media page. It is not a video that is published by JW's.

And you have never backed it up with evidence.

Actually there are those in the medical profession on this forum who confirm that they have doctors they call "dinosaurs" who refuse to keep up with the latest findings and techniques. They exist in every hospital.

Sadly, I must refer you back to your own video, around 2:18 in. It clearly says that 59.3% of transfusions were "inappropriate", 28.95 "uncertain" and 11.8% "appropriate". How does that support your assertion that "up to 88% of transfusions were not only unnecessary but harmful"?
You seem such a nice person so I'll assume over eagerness to make your point.

Since the rounded out figures in the video confirm that almost 60% were "inappropriate" meaning that no transfusion was actually needed.....and almost 30% were "uncertain", meaning that it wasn't obvious that the patient needed a transfusion, I was being accurate, not over eager. Do the math. Since it was established that all transfusions are harmful, regardless of the doctor's opinion of 'appropriateness' of the treatment, the risks far outweighed the benefits in the vast majority of cases. That means that patients survived in spite of the transfusions, rather than because of them. The studies cited in the video prove it. The words, "increased morbidity and mortality" should never be used in the same sentence relating to a supposedly "life-saving" treatment.

The supporting source was intended to show how much more than 'mutations' is involved in anti bacterial resistance.
And to tie it back into your thread, as you indicated that jws were spared the perils of blood transfusions by following their interpretation of God's command in the Bible, wouldn't it have been nice if God had also warned of the dangers of reliance on antibiotics?

God has provided all the anti-bacterial agents we need in natural products. If we had an optimum diet along with clean water and air, our health problems would greatly diminish. The commercial system however has hidden these natural healing agents so that they could sell you very expensive artificial products produced in a laboratory, rather than in your garden. I am hoping for the legalization of medical marijuana so that its healing properties can be recognized and used to alleviate the suffering of many who rely on the drug companies for their "medicine"....most of which is a case of the treatment often being worse than the disease. The system is more corrupt than most people realize.

 

[dianaiad]

That is of course your own choice. I am glad to hear that your treatments have worked to your advantage. Was your donor a close relative or someone on a register?

The stem cells used in the transplant itself were my own. I was given chemotherapy to 'knock down' the cancer. When the proportion of cancerous cells to normal ones was as low as chemo could, I was given medication to force my bone marrow to produce more stem cells. They were harvested (before anybody goes 'eww,' that's done exactly the way one donates blood at a Red Cross center; no biggie), 'sorted' and frozen for future use. I went to the City of Hope in Duarte, where I was given enough chemo to kill off my bone marrow, and my own stem cells were transfused back into me.

My son's blood was used for the platelet transfusion I required later in the process.

I have what is called 'high risk' Multiple Myeloma, because the cancer cells have a specific problem that makes it more dangerous. People with my type of MM don't have as positive a prognoses as those with 'regular' MM. However...and this is why this is important to the conversation...when someone like me, with 'high risk' MM, has a long term remission as a result of a bone marrow transplant, everybody gets really excited. Turns out that what that transplant may have done is turn my 'high risk' MM into 'low risk' MM, with a MUCH better prognosis. Though I WILL relapse eventually, I may well have many years of remission ahead of me, and when I do relapse, I have those 'miracle stem cells" waiting for me to give me another kick start.

It's been two and a half years since my transplant, and I'm still going strong.

So, while I have nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses; you believe strongly, live according to your precepts the best you can, and I'll serve lemonade and cookies to any of you who come to see me on a 108 degree summer day and really enjoy the conversation, I do not agree with most things you believe in, and I especially have problems with the 'blood transfusion' thing. I mean, really....if it weren't for my son and medical science...and blood transfusions, I literally wouldn't be here to debate with you.

And I plan to be here for quite a while longer. (grin)

 

[Deeje]

The stem cells used in the transplant itself were my own. I was given chemotherapy to 'knock down' the cancer. When the proportion of cancerous cells to normal ones was as low as chemo could, I was given medication to force my bone marrow to produce more stem cells. They were harvested (before anybody goes 'eww,' that's done exactly the way one donates blood at a Red Cross center; no biggie), 'sorted' and frozen for future use. I went to the City of Hope in Duarte, where I was given enough chemo to kill off my bone marrow, and my own stem cells were transfused back into me.

My son's blood was used for the platelet transfusion I required later in the process.

I have what is called 'high risk' Multiple Myeloma, because the cancer cells have a specific problem that makes it more dangerous. People with my type of MM don't have as positive a prognoses as those with 'regular' MM. However...and this is why this is important to the conversation...when someone like me, with 'high risk' MM, has a long term remission as a result of a bone marrow transplant, everybody gets really excited. Turns out that what that transplant may have done is turn my 'high risk' MM into 'low risk' MM, with a MUCH better prognosis. Though I WILL relapse eventually, I may well have many years of remission ahead of me, and when I do relapse, I have those 'miracle stem cells" waiting for me to give me another kick start.

It's been two and a half years since my transplant, and I'm still going strong.

I wish you many more years of wellness.

Stem cells are little miracle workers.

So, while I have nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses; you believe strongly, live according to your precepts the best you can, and I'll serve lemonade and cookies to any of you who come to see me on a 108 degree summer day and really enjoy the conversation, I do not agree with most things you believe in

Thank you for your generosity to my brothers and sisters. I know we disagree on most everything....I had a brief excursion into Mormonism in my youth.....I could not accept most of what you believe simply because you have a different "Bible" and rely on the BoM for most of your beliefs. It isn't scripture to anyone but you guys....but hey that is for another thread.

and I especially have problems with the 'blood transfusion' thing. I mean, really....if it weren't for my son and medical science...and blood transfusions, I literally wouldn't be here to debate with you.

There are many techniques available today so that the "blood transfusion thing" is really not a problem for us any more. There are a great many doctors who are on board with us in this issue. They have seen the "risk verses benefit" ratio increase markedly as new research and statistics tell the story. The risks far outweigh the benefits in the majority of cases. Good doctors who keep up to date with the latest findings, and who don't have their own prejudices, will work with us to produce a good outcome. People die every day and none of us is immune to the sting of death....we will all die from something eventually. Its how we die and at what point in our lives that it happens that is a worry.

And I plan to be here for quite a while longer. (grin)

I hope for the best outcome for you and your family.

 

[McBell]

I am merely relating facts.

except when you flat out lied about what was contained in the OP video.
And that you have no opinion on the topic....
Your definition of the word "fact" leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Deeje]

except when you flat out lied about what was contained in the OP video.
And that you have no opinion on the topic....
Your definition of the word "fact" leaves a lot to be desired.

Thank you so much for that enlightening comment Mestemia.....got up on the wrong side of the bed again?

Aren't you tired of being grumpy?

 

[McBell]

Thank you so much for that enlightening comment Mestemia.....got up on the wrong side of the bed again?

Aren't you tired of being grumpy?

oh yeah, I forgot to mention that you really need to work on your back peddling skills.

 

[Deeje]

oh yeah, I forgot to mention that you really need to work on your back peddling skills.

Are you bored again today? What back peddling skills would they be?

 

[Olinda]

Hmmmm....since the warnings from these specialists forms part of the information that leads to an informed decision, I am bemused by your comment....?

Actually there are those in the medical profession on this forum who confirm that they have doctors they call "dinosaurs" who refuse to keep up with the latest findings and techniques. They exist in every hospital.



Since the rounded out figures in the video confirm that almost 60% were "inappropriate" meaning that no transfusion was actually needed.....and almost 30% were "uncertain", meaning that it wasn't obvious that the patient needed a transfusion, I was being accurate, not over eager. Do the math. Since it was established that all transfusions are harmful, regardless of the doctor's opinion of 'appropriateness' of the treatment, the risks far outweighed the benefits in the vast majority of cases. That means that patients survived in spite of the transfusions, rather than because of them. The studies cited in the video prove it. The words, "increased morbidity and mortality" should never be used in the same sentence relating to a supposedly "life-saving" treatment.

God has provided all the anti-bacterial agents we need in natural products. If we had an optimum diet along with clean water and air, our health problems would greatly diminish. The commercial system however has hidden these natural healing agents so that they could sell you very expensive artificial products produced in a laboratory, rather than in your garden. I am hoping for the legalization of medical marijuana so that its healing properties can be recognized and used to alleviate the suffering of many who rely on the drug companies for their "medicine"....most of which is a case of the treatment often being worse than the disease. The system is more corrupt than most people realize.

I said:

So in summary, to transfuse or not should be a case by case informed decision.

You replied:

Indeed. For those who have no problems with blood transfusion and who wish to ignore the warnings from specialists in that field of medicine, they will get no arguments from me because that isn't my choice. They can believe the warnings or ignore them.

So I ask again, how was your reply relevant? Seeking an informed decision isn't the same as ignoring warnings.

It is an Australian Government Media page. It is not a video that is published by JW's.

? I didn't dispute that either.

Actually there are those in the medical profession on this forum who confirm that they have doctors they call "dinosaurs" who refuse to keep up with the latest findings and techniques. They exist in every hospital.

In fact they exist in every profession . Anecdote provides no evidence as to how widespread and/or influential they are.

God has provided all the anti-bacterial agents we need in natural products. If we had an optimum diet along with clean water and air, our health problems would greatly diminish. The commercial system however has hidden these natural healing agents so that they could sell you very expensive artificial products produced in a laboratory, rather than in your garden. I am hoping for the legalization of medical marijuana so that its healing properties can be recognized and used to alleviate the suffering of many who rely on the drug companies for their "medicine"....most of which is a case of the treatment often being worse than the disease. The system is more corrupt than most people realize.

What I asked was, why there was no warning of the use (or overuse) of antibiotics. Whether natural or man-made is not relevant. Penicillin was initially extracted from a fungus, and there are plenty of bacteria and such which resist it.

The misunderstanding of the dangers of blood transfusions deserves a reply of its own.

 

[dianaiad]

I wish you many more years of wellness.

Stem cells are little miracle workers.

That they are...but aren't stem cells harvested from the blood considered a blood product?

Thank you for your generosity to my brothers and sisters. I know we disagree on most everything....I had a brief excursion into Mormonism in my youth.....I could not accept most of what you believe simply because you have a different "Bible" and rely on the BoM for most of your beliefs. It isn't scripture to anyone but you guys....but hey that is for another thread.

True, the Book of Mormon is only scripture to us, but....I know that Jehovah's Witnesses use their own version of the bible (I think...) but since when is the KJV a 'different bible?" Mind you, I have also been known to use Young's literal and several other translations, even "The Message" when I need a giggle, but as far as I am aware, the King James Version is generally accepted as a 'proper' translation in most of Christendom. (grin)

There are many techniques available today so that the "blood transfusion thing" is really not a problem for us any more. There are a great many doctors who are on board with us in this issue. They have seen the "risk verses benefit" ratio increase markedly as new research and statistics tell the story. The risks far outweigh the benefits in the majority of cases. Good doctors who keep up to date with the latest findings, and who don't have their own prejudices, will work with us to produce a good outcome. People die every day and none of us is immune to the sting of death....we will all die from something eventually. Its how we die and at what point in our lives that it happens that is a worry.

Oh, this is very true. We will all die of something, and I, unlike most people, have a pretty good idea of how I'm going to go, if not precisely when. I'm OK with that, actually. I have also noticed that suicide is not considered a good thing. Many beliefs consider it to be a 'mortal sin' (though that's a concept I don't really agree with). The idea for me, however, is that if one CAN extend one's life through whatever moral and ethical means are available (means that don't harm others, in other words), so that one can have more time to do what needs to be done in this lifetime, and one does not, then it is a form of suicide. We all know, I think, when it really is 'time to go," for whatever reason...and it's not my time to go. Not yet.

I hope for the best outcome for you and your family.

Thank you very much, Deeje.