Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Olinda]

Sorry I wasn't pedantic enough with my quotations. It wasn't just Prof Ibister...it was all of the doctors who spoke in support of alternative procedures. None of them advocated for the use of blood in elective situations. Not even in cases of severe anemia was it suggested that blood was the treatment of choice. It seems as if we have selective hearing among the readers in this thread.

Thanks @Deeje . If your position now is that the video advocates careful assessment and alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions where appropriate and not
"it was established that all transfusions are harmful", nor "Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors", we're fine.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks @Deeje . If your position now is that the video advocates careful assessment and alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions where appropriate and not
"it was established that all transfusions are harmful", nor "Blood transfusions cause more problems and complications than any other procedure, according to these doctors", we're fine.

That is indeed what I got out of that video, and as far as that is concerned, 'they're' quite right. It is NOT a good idea to thrown a 'blood transfusion' at everything. It IS an organ transplant, in a very real sense, and should be looked at with great care...and I'm all for the safer alternatives when they provide the benefits required with fewer risks. If (though, frankly, I don't think that the Jehovah's Witnesses can take all the credit for this) research into alternative methods is producing better choices, yahoo!

I would still stand in line at the Red Cross to donate, if I thought it would be safe and they'd take me (it wouldn't be and they won't, of course).

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Lev 17:10-14:
" As for anyone, whether of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing among them, who consumes any blood, I will set myself against that individual and will cut that person off from among the people, 11 since the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement on the altar for yourselves, because it is the blood as life that makes atonement. 12 That is why I have told the Israelites: No one among you, not even a resident alien, may consume blood.

13 Anyone hunting, whether of the Israelites or of the aliens residing among them, who catches an animal or a bird that may be eaten, shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth, 14 since the life of all flesh is its blood. I have told the Israelites: You shall not consume the blood of any flesh. Since the life of all flesh is its blood, anyone who consumes it shall be cut off."

You want it more plainly stated?

It is very plain, you are just seeing it with WT glasses on. What do those verses "Really" say,

Leviticus 17:10-11 (ESV Strong's) 10 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Did God give them "human" blood to make atonement for their souls, or was it "animal" blood?

Leviticus 17:13 (ESV Strong's) 13 “Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

Hmmm, no mention of a "human" here! Did they hunt "humans" for food back then?

Leviticus 17:13-14 (ESV Strong's) 13 “Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. 14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood.

You can't see or understand that this is all about "animal" blood, not "human" blood?


Please show me where you get any "human" reference in these verses.

Leviticus 17:10-16 (ESV Strong's) 10 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. 12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

13 “Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. 14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off. 15 And every person who eats what dies of itself or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean. 16 But if he does not wash them or bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity.”

It's all about "animal" blood, or did God institute "human" blood for their atonement?

Lets keep it simple.....as you can see from Leviticus 17, unbled meat was part of the command to abstain from blood. If an animal killed for food was not properly bled, it was a sin to consume the flesh. Make sense now?

Makes a lot of sense, "ANIMAL" blood, not "HUMAN" blood!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Is there another way to "lose your life" that I am unaware of? The last time I looked, Christian martyrdom was praised by God. If it wasn't, then a lot of Christians died in vain.

And you believe that a person that has a terminal disease that requires a transfusion, if they reject that life saving transfusion and dies, the are a "Christian martyr"?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The purpose of the thread was to bring to people's attention a potentially dangerous procedure that is still being routinely performed in hospitals as we speak. The fact that the video in the OP validates our position is a bonus. The fact that it is doctors who are specialist in this field of medicine who are issuing the warning adds a lot of weight to the correctness of God's laws.

This is a "General RELIGIOUS Debate" forum. If the 'real' purpose of the thread was to bring it to peoples attention, why the 'religious' forum?

"The fact that the video in the OP validates our position is a bonus." It's not a bonus, but the 'purpose' of this thread! 'Look, medical specialist agree with us!'

This post is a perfect example of 'theocratic warfare'!

Try to keep up will you?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

With all due respect to you and your beliefs as well, I don't think I attempted in any part of this thread to suggest otherwise. My point was not the beliefs of JW's per se, but to inform people about the dangers inherent in the practice of unnecessary blood transfusions.

Really? Then why post about "the dangers inherent in the practice of unnecessary blood transfusions." in a "General RELIGIOUS Debate" forum?

 

[McBell]

Really? The why post about "the dangers inherent in the practice of unnecessary blood transfusions." in a "General RELIGIOUS Debate" forum?

I suspect you are perhaps putting to much emphasis on the location of the thread.

I know I have started more than one thread in a "wrong" place simply because I was not paying attention to where I was starting it when I hit the post button.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

We have no desire to 'commit suicide'...in fact we have the same desire to keep living as anyone else, but we will not break God's law to preserve this life as if it was the most important. There are no escape clauses in this law. Jesus said "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Which law might that be? Only abstaining from blood?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I suspect you are perhaps putting to much emphasis on the location of the thread.

I know I have started more than one thread in a "wrong" place simply because I was not paying attention to where I was starting it when I hit the post button.

She knew where she was posting!

The fact that the video in the OP validates our position is a bonus.

 

[Deeje]

She knew where she was posting!

Of course my motives are always sinister to one with an obsessed mind.

I'll just keep swimming....

 

[Deeje]

Yes, @dianaiad , we do agree. Especially about not trying to use science to bolster religious decisions, or pronouncing judgement on scientifically verifiable matters based on beliefs.

The "allogenic" vs "autologous" issue (yep, I had to look it up ) seems quite pertinent to this thread, as I understand that both are forbidden by jw doctrine.

Yes, we believe that once the blood has left the body, it is to be returned to God symbolically by pouring it out on the ground. (Deuteronomy 12:23-24) Yet there are procedures where blood salvage is possible.
A heart/lung machine for example, can be primed with saline solution and set up to complete a circulatory system outside the body. As long as the flow of blood is uninterrupted, we see the machine as an extension of our circulatory system.

Cell salvage is also possible where blood loss in surgery is expected. The blood is salvaged from the site of the bleeding and fed back in through a filtration system so that the blood is in continuous circulation and loss is minimal....all the while conserving the patient's own blood.

"Autologous" blood transfusion is a safer option by far that accepting an anonymous donor's blood, but here too it is the storage that sets the patient up for problems.

Another problem with storing one's own blood for surgery is that, especially in older people, the red cells are not replaced as rapidly as younger people so sometimes the patient is found to be anemic before the surgery and the operation is cancelled. Blood can only be stored for a limited period of time. Postponed operations usually cannot be done for some months as doctor's schedules are pretty full.

"Juffermans and colleagues15 observed that “RBCs stored for more than 14 days is a risk factor for onset of bacterial infection after trauma”. Whether such RBC units represent an actual risk factor for infection or for other clinically relevant outcomes in any patient group remains an important albeit completely open question."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417719/


See also http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96237648

 

[Olinda]

Yes, we believe that once the blood has left the body, it is to be returned to God symbolically by pouring it out on the ground. (Deut 12:23, 24) Yet there are procedures where blood salvage is possible.
A heart/lung machine for example, can be primed with saline solution and set up to complete a circulatory system outside the body. As long as the flow of blood is uninterrupted, we see the machine as an extension of our circulatory system.

Cell salvage is also possible where blood loss in surgery is expected. The blood is salvaged from the site of the bleeding and fed back in through a filtration system so that the blood is in continuous circulation and loss is minimal....all the while conserving the patient's own blood.

Another problem with storing one's own blood for surgery is that, especially in older people, the red cells are not replaced as rapidly as younger people so sometimes the patient is found to be anemic before the surgery and the operation is cancelled. Blood can only be stored for a limited period of time. Postponed operations usually cannot be done for some months as doctor's schedules are pretty full.

"Juffermans and colleagues15 observed that “RBCs stored for more than 14 days is a risk factor for onset of bacterial infection after trauma”. Whether such RBC units represent an actual risk factor for infection or for other clinically relevant outcomes in any patient group remains an important albeit completely open question."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417719/


See also http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96237648

Interesting. it seems to me a bit technical that blood may leave the body to pass through a machine or filter, but not be stored. But like @dianaiad I respect your beliefs.

Do you regard the potential problems with blood storage as an indication of the correctness of your doctrines?

 

[Deeje]

Interesting. it seems to me a bit technical that blood may leave the body to pass through a machine or filter, but not be stored. But like @dianaiad I respect your beliefs.

Do you regard the potential problems with blood storage as an indication of the correctness of your doctrines?

No, not necessarily, the potential problems with stored blood are becoming better understood which for us results in better understanding by the medical profession regarding our stand on blood transfusions. It has resulted in more respect for our position, which is entirely scriptural, but supported medically by informed doctors.

As I have said a few times, the whole blood issue that used to cause us a lot of problems due to ignorance, is now no longer a problem unless we encounter doctors in emergency situations who refuse to accept that there has been a definite swing away from the routine use of blood in surgery or even in trauma units.

We have a Hospital Liaison Committee in most countries that advises doctors on the bloodless techniques that can be used on Jehovah's Witnesses and others who have objections to using donor blood.
There is a growing list of doctors who will co-operate with us on the blood issue, even with our children. And hospitals dedicated to bloodless techniques can treat us with confidence.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Of course my motives are always sinister to one with an obsessed mind. I'll just keep swimming....

So you're saying that posting this here was a mistake?

 

[Olinda]

No, not necessarily, the potential problems with stored blood are becoming better understood which for us results in better understanding by the medical profession regarding our stand on blood transfusions. It has resulted in more respect for our position, which is entirely scriptural, but supported medically by informed doctors.

As I have said a few times, the whole blood issue that used to cause us a lot of problems due to ignorance, is now no longer a problem unless we encounter doctors in emergency situations who refuse to accept that there has been a definite swing away from the routine use of blood in surgery or even in trauma units.

We have a Hospital Liaison Committee in most countries that advises doctors on the bloodless techniques that can be used on Jehovah's Witnesses and others who have objections to using donor blood.
There is a growing list of doctors who will co-operate with us on the blood issue, even with our children. And hospitals dedicated to bloodless techniques can treat us with confidence.

No, not necessarily, the potential problems with stored blood are becoming better understood which for us results in better understanding by the medical profession regarding our stand on blood transfusions. It has resulted in more respect for our position, which is entirely scriptural, but supported medically by informed doctors.

@Deeje , you are still conflating religious and medical issues, as @dianaiad explained earlier. If doctors are increasingly willing to try alternatives to blood transfusions, it is because they believe that a good outcome can be achieved, rather than because they "better understand your stand on blood transfusions" (unless they have converted to your religion, of course). In my experience, most doctors will try to conform to the patients' wishes and beliefs as far as possible.

Anyway, since it has now been agreed that blood transfusions save lives, the title question is answered, and I might just stop bothering you with pedantry.

Hope you are enjoying winter!

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje , you are still conflating religious and medical issues, as @dianaiad explained earlier. If doctors are increasingly willing to try alternatives to blood transfusions, it is because they believe that a good outcome can be achieved, rather than because they "better understand your stand on blood transfusions" (unless they have converted to your religion, of course). In my experience, most doctors will try to conform to the patients' wishes and beliefs as far as possible.

Anyway, since it has now been agreed that blood transfusions save lives, the title question is answered, and I might just stop bothering you with pedantry.

If in your own mind you believe that blood transfusions save more lives than they harm, that is up to you. I will leave the doctors in the OP video to tell the story.

I think I will just give up trying to explain anything to those who really aren't listening. There is no 'conflating religious issues with medical ones'. I am merely pointing out that a clearer understanding of the negative outcomes experienced with a large number of patients who were given blood transfusions has resulted in the medical profession treating us less like religious fanatics.....(which we aren't,) and more like people who desire an alternative approach which is reasonable for all patients and commonly results in a better outcome.

Hope you are enjoying winter!

I don't love winter,

but thanks anyway.

 

[dianaiad]

If in your own mind you believe that blood transfusions save more lives than they harm, that is up to you. I will leave the doctors in the OP video to tell the story.

I think I will just give up trying to explain anything to those who really aren't listening. There is no 'conflating religious issues with medical ones'. I am merely pointing out that a clearer understanding of the negative outcomes experienced with a large number of patients who were given blood transfusions has resulted in the medical profession treating us less like religious fanatics.....(which we aren't,) and more like people who desire an alternative approach which is reasonable for all patients and commonly results in a better outcome.



I don't love winter,

but thanks anyway.

The problem here, Deeje, isn't that we aren't listening. We are. It's just that we are hearing more than you want us to. (grin) I don't think any of us here have mocked or made fun of you on this thread for being a 'religious fanatic.' I certainly have not. Indeed, I have been pretty clear that your reasons for avoiding blood products for yourself, religious reasons, are your own and all the reason you need to behave and/or avoid whatever it is you believe God wants of you. You don't HAVE to justify it medically or scientifically, and it is, frankly, foolish to do so.

It's also foolish of anybody to point out how blood transfusions can and do save lives in an attempt to disprove your beliefs. That's not the point of religion....or science.

I think what I...and not just I...am trying to point out here is that it is just a little--counterproductive, perhaps?--to come to a religious forum with a strictly medical video and claim that your only purpose is to warn people of the dangers of blood transfusion (blood transfusions in general, as you wrote and the video did NOT say) when you just happen to belong to a group with religious objections to the practice.

Now Mormons don't have a religious belief that raises life-and-death stakes as high; abstaining from booze, coffee, tea and tobacco isn't going to hurt anybody. However, if I were dumb enough to come in HERE with videos from health professionals and claim that they proved the evils of green tea and the morning cuppa, I'd get clobbered.
...............and I would deserve it.

I hope that doctors do indeed continue to find alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions. The advantages of that are obvious, even if they aren't all religious. In MY case, however, as wonderful as those products may be for most things. the 'real thing' is, quite literally, life and death. If I were a Jehovah's Witness, I wouldn't be here arguing with you, in other words.

Ah, well. I DO love winter, btw. I'm absolutely not in it, with my daily temps being around 108 Fahrenheit (that's 43.22 for those who use reasonable measurements) and the country around me in flames. I'm going to find some water now. See y'all in a couple of weeks.

 

[Deeje]

The problem here, Deeje, isn't that we aren't listening. We are. It's just that we are hearing more than you want us to. (grin) I don't think any of us here have mocked or made fun of you on this thread for being a 'religious fanatic.' I certainly have not. Indeed, I have been pretty clear that your reasons for avoiding blood products for yourself, religious reasons, are your own and all the reason you need to behave and/or avoid whatever it is you believe God wants of you. You don't HAVE to justify it medically or scientifically, and it is, frankly, foolish to do so.

And that statement is again proof that you have your fingers in your ears, humming. You are hearing only what you want to hear. Not one doctor in that video was advocating that blood transfusions were safe. They were pointing to safer options....bloodless alternatives, whilst highlighting the adverse effects of transfusing stored donor blood.

Did I say that ridicule was coming from any of the posters here? It was the medical profession that treated us as 'religious fanatics' when we refused the treatment of choice convenient to them. There was no reason for them to believe otherwise until further studies were made, and the findings were confronting. They no longer treat us this way BECAUSE there is medical evidence to support our stand as reasonable under current knowledge. That was the point.

It's also foolish of anybody to point out how blood transfusions can and do save lives in an attempt to disprove your beliefs. That's not the point of religion....or science.

If anyone can watch the video in the OP and still walk away with the notion that blood transfusions are always "life-saving" then they are welcome to that decision. I see pointing out the medical dangers as an obligation, because I don't think that patients are given all the facts.

I hope that doctors do indeed continue to find alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions. The advantages of that are obvious, even if they aren't all religious. In MY case, however, as wonderful as those products may be for most things. the 'real thing' is, quite literally, life and death. If I were a Jehovah's Witness, I wouldn't be here arguing with you, in other words.

And I asked you before where you'd be according to your belief system? You didn't answer me....any reason?

Ah, well. I DO love winter, btw. I'm absolutely not in it, with my daily temps being around 108 Fahrenheit (that's 43.22 for those who use reasonable measurements) and the country around me in flames. I'm going to find some water now. See y'all in a couple of weeks.

I have seen your fires on our news whilst the snow is falling in the mountains here. We are opposites in more ways than one it seems, on opposite sides of the world in opposite seasons. Why do you need to "find water"?

 

[Olinda]

If in your own mind you believe that blood transfusions save more lives than they harm, that is up to you. I will leave the doctors in the OP video to tell the story.

I think I will just give up trying to explain anything to those who really aren't listening. There is no 'conflating religious issues with medical ones'. I am merely pointing out that a clearer understanding of the negative outcomes experienced with a large number of patients who were given blood transfusions has resulted in the medical profession treating us less like religious fanatics.....(which we aren't,) and more like people who desire an alternative approach which is reasonable for all patients and commonly results in a better outcome.

I don't love winter,

but thanks anyway.

If in your own mind you believe that blood transfusions save more lives than they harm, that is up to you. I will leave the doctors in the OP video to tell the story.

Sure I believe it (right in my own mind!) and the video doesn't contradict that belief. If you think otherwise, please tell me where. A small hint - inappropriate or unnecessary treatment is not the same as harm .

I am merely pointing out that a clearer understanding of the negative outcomes experienced with a large number of patients who were given blood transfusions has resulted in the medical profession treating us less like religious fanatics.....(which we aren't,)

All I said was that this effect wasn't definitely related to the cause, and you haven't established that relationship.

Don't like winter? Well spring is on the way, however slowly!

 

[Olinda]

And that statement is again proof that you have your fingers in your ears, humming. You are hearing only what you want to hear. Not one doctor in that video was advocating that blood transfusions were safe. They were pointing to safer options....bloodless alternatives, whilst highlighting the adverse effects of transfusing stored donor blood.



If anyone can watch the video in the OP and still walk away with the notion that blood transfusions are always "life-saving" then they are welcome to that decision. I see pointing out the medical dangers as an obligation, because I don't think that patients are given all the facts.

I have seen your fires on our news whilst the snow is falling in the mountains here. We are opposites in more ways than one it seems, on opposite sides of the world in opposite seasons. Why do you need to "find water"?

If anyone can watch the video in the OP and still walk away with the notion that blood transfusions are always "life-saving" then they are welcome to that decision.

Now that's over the top, even by this thread's standards. Is there ANY procedure or medication that is "always life-saving"? I'd surely like to know what it might be!