Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Deeje]

Yes they have.
And for good reason.

In whose opinion? Those who now have egg on their face?

88% of all transfusions are unnecessary according to their studies.

Perhaps you should reveal what you think your linked video is saying?
For it sure isn't even implying, let alone suggesting, a JW style ban of blood transfusions.

I think people are smart enough to watch the video and make up their own minds. JW's do not require a ban on blood transfusions for those who are not JW's.

We just want people to be aware of the latest findings. Is there some law that says we must not reveal the truth about blood as medicine?

 

[McBell]

In whose opinion? Those who now have egg on their face?

88% of all transfusions are unnecessary according to their studies.

Whose studies?
The group from your OP link or the Watchtowers?

I think people are smart enough to watch the video and make up their own minds.

Even those who do not agree with your bold empty implications that the video somehow supports the Watchtower blood transfusion policy?

JW's do not require a ban on blood transfusions for those who are not JW's.

and?

We just want people to be aware of the latest findings.

when you can twist said findings to supposedly support your position.
Which the video in the OP does not do.

Is there some law that says we must not reveal the truth about blood as medicine?

Nope.
Good thing there is no law that says you are required to reveal the truth either, right?


Most interesting how you did not address the point of the post you responded to...

What is it you think the video is saying?

 

[Curious George]

I will repeat what I said before....

The findings of the downside of blood transfusions are equally binding on our children. If the risk exists for adults, then they exist equally for children.
Misinformed judges making our children wards of the state to force blood transfusions on them is tantamount to sanctioning rape. Would you stand by and allow the authorities to violate your child's body under the mistaken notion that they are saving the child's life? Whose advice are they relying on to be accurate?...misinformed doctors.

What if the child dies as a result of the transfusion?....or contracts some deadly disease that was not screened for in the process? Who is at fault then?

Now that the stats verify what we have been saying all along, will misinformed judges still want to force this "treatment" on young children, knowing that so many in the medical profession now consider it dangerous? Misinformation can cause loss of life. Any doctor who still treats blood transfusions as common and acceptable practice is not up to date on the latest findings. Who wants to be treated by a doctor whose knowledge is not up to date on something this serious?

If requiring blood transfusion when medical professionals deem it life saving is tantamount to rape, denying it when medical professionals deem it necessary to save a life is equally tantamount to rape.

Spare me the "we were right" shtick, you were not. You said "god doesn't want us to do blood transfusions" and now there is evidence that some blood transfusions are unnecessary or even harmful and you think that makes you right....lol

No, your reasoning is not right, the conclusion that comes from your reasoning is not right, and you certainly are not right in denying a child a blood transfusion based on a religion.

 

[Deeje]

Whose studies?
The group from your OP link or the Watchtowers?

We don't do those kinds of studies....we rely on the medical profession like everyone else, to know their job. We are not anti-medicine or anti-doctor.

The OP was a link from an Australian Government website....nothing to do with JW's. They simply affirm that the stance we have made over many decades is now shown to be reasonable on a medical level, even though our position is purely scriptural. We do not force our views on anyone else. The OP was a FYI piece.

Even those who do not agree with your bold empty implications that the video somehow supports the Watchtower blood transfusion policy?

The video most assuredly supports our view that our position on blood transfusions is not unreasonable.

when you can twist said findings to supposedly support your position.
Which the video in the OP does not do.

I believe it does support our position. You are welcome to your opinion.

Good thing there is no law that says you are required to reveal the truth either, right?

There was no falsehood in the OP at all. It was posted so that people could evaluate their own position on the efficacy of blood in medicine.
It isn't JW's who provide the studies but doctors with JW patients seeing a vast difference in the recovery rates and less complications after surgery. Take up your argument with them.

Most interesting how you did not address the point of the post you responded to...

What is it you think the video is saying?

Obviously if you have to ask that twice, then it is different to what you think it says.

Let me quote some of the data....

Prof James Isbister.....
"We really must change transfusion medicine practice ...there is no alternative...and there is a sense of urgency."

"What is the Evidence Telling Us?"
"We have witnessed a dramatic paradigm shift whereby red cell transfusion once regarded as "one of the greatest advances in medicine" are now considered harmful in some clinical situations."

In patient studies, "risk was shown to outweigh benefits".

"In adult intensive care units, trauma and surgical patients, transfusions are associated with increased morbidity and mortality."

In the pie chart almost 60% of transfusions performed were deemed "inappropriate". Almost 30% were questionable and only 11.5% were considered necessary.

"Even the most profound anemia can be corrected without blood"

"We Have No Choice But to Act Now"

"Blood transfusions have a wider range of adverse clinical outcomes than any other medical intervention"

Taking all the evidence into consideration, it was said that "Blood transfusions are a major multiplier of morbidity and mortality" breaching safety and quality standards in medical practice.

Transfusion medicine is on the decline as doctors realize that it is no longer considered good medical practice. It causes more harm than good and patients recovery is enhanced when blood is not used. It's not us providing this data...it is the medical profession itself.

 

[Deeje]

If requiring blood transfusion when medical professionals deem it life saving is tantamount to rape, denying it when medical professionals deem it necessary to save a life is equally tantamount to rape.

Spare me the "we were right" shtick, you were not. You said "god doesn't want us to do blood transfusions" and now there is evidence that some blood transfusions are unnecessary or even harmful and you think that makes you right....lol

No, your reasoning is not right, the conclusion that comes from your reasoning is not right, and you certainly are not right in denying a child a blood transfusion based on a religion.

You are point blank denying the evidence. If blood transfusions are no longer considered safe medical practice in the majority of cases, then forcing them on children is unconscionable.

It is God who considers blood to be sacred....we uphold his position and that position is now revealed to be within reason, given the present medical data.
Like it or not, blood transfusion is not the life saver it was once promoted to be.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

The issue of overusing whole blood transfusions is one thing. But withholding such transfusions to those in the process of bleeding to death, particularly if it's a child, for any reason, is tantamount to murder.

 

[HonestJoe]

Who said anything about making modern clinical decisions based on ancient religious doctrine? These modern clinical decisions are being made because of what modern medical records are revealing.

No, the JW refusal of any blood transfusions has always been based on religious doctrine. They're entirely separate from any scientific information about the actual clinical safety and effectiveness of blood transfusions. If this report had strongly supported blood transfusions, you'd be dismissing or ignoring it.

The video you linked clearly states that while there are legitimate concerns in many of cases, there remain ones where blood transfusions are recognised as clinically necessary. JWs will continue to refuse blood transfusions in those circumstances regardless.

Our stance has proven that medicine got it wrong...not us. We recover very well in the majority of cases without blood.

You've not got anything right, you're blindly following an uninformed guess which came out (partially) lucky.

The findings of the downside of blood transfusions are equally binding on our children.

So are the benefits. A JW child would still be denied a blood transfusion in the circumstances where it is clinically necessary.

There is no dishonesty in the information...only dishonesty in the responses to it

Yes, that I what I'm accusing you of.You're misrepresenting the facts to try to present the impression that your religious doctrine is entirely correct. That is a lie - the information here is that some blood transfusions are unnecessary while you claim they're all unnecessary.

 

[JoStories]

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

There are definitely risks associated with a blood transfusion. However, there are also risks associated with an NS infusion. What if the patient is hypernatremic? Perhaps with a sodium level of over 5 mEq. Even a 1/2 NS infusion could be lethal. In addition, there is the risk of hypervolemia, if the infusion goes unchecked, an equipment failure, etc. The risks of blood transfusion are mostly limited to an allergic reaction as the problem of giving the wrong type of blood is very remote now due to two licensed persons requiring checking the blood and the point that most places use computer documentation. There is also the potential problem of hypervolumia but given the blood is used in unchecked loss, hypovolemia is a much higher risk. Blood also carried the risk of a febrile reaction but again, this has been mostly eradicated by given Tylenol IV prior to giving the blood. And the need for blood very much outweighs the risk in most patients. In my 40+ year career of nursing, and this is critical care where blood is given almost daily, I have only ever had one febrile reaction and never an allergic one. This video is based on material that is so old that it would never be considered by reputable MD's or nurses. Of course, one is welcome to refuse, for any reason they might like. But when it comes to being given blood versus the likelihood of death, most choose blood every time.

 

[JoStories]

What rock have you guys been hiding under?

http://noblood.org/forum/threads/3088-List-of-Hospitals-that-provides-bloodless-surgeries

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323494504578340962879110432

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine

The issue of blood-less surgeries is entirely dependent on the type of surgery. For example, a lap chole is done by laser with three insertion points, none of which require an open approach, unless problems arise. OTOH, open heart surgery always, or at least 99% require blood to be given. This would also apply to brain surgeries, for the most part, large open abdomen surgeries, and large joint replacements, as well as emergent procedures. Of course, once again, the patient is free to refuse for any reason. But if a person is on the operating table and blood loss becomes an issue, doctors have the right to give it under emergent conditions when the patient is not able to respond their wishes.

 

[Shak34]

Since a child is not a witness until they are baptized, IMO they shouldn't be held to the same rules and regulations of a baptized adult.

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

 

[JoStories]

Are you serious?

Gen 9:3-4 (ESVST) 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Are you suggesting we can eat humans also?

No, not at this time however, cannibalism has a long and sordid history. Many cultures of antiquity were reputed to have eaten humans: Mayans, etc. Additionally, as some survivalist stories have been told, in times of extreme need, people will eat people to live. And while people with porphyria have allegedly been associated with the drinking of blood..think Dracula here.. it is not blood that is eaten but rather the flesh. IE: Muscles.

 

[JoStories]

Really? The next few verses talk about killing humans,

Gen 9:5-6 (ESVST) 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Doesn't sound like God meant we could each other!

But then Leviticus also tells the Biblical follower that they may not partake of shellfish or pork. If you are Jewish, you would not still eat those products. Furthermore, Jews may not eat the hind end of a cow. Only from roughly the middle ribs are allowed per their laws. IE: Kosher. Those societies that did eat humans predate your Bible so your Bible does not pertain.

 

[JoStories]

As I have indicated, our position on blood has been proven to be reasonable, given the data. There are literally thousands of JW's who have been told that they would die without blood....the vast majority of them lived and recovered well, in spite of the dire predictions. So can you believe a doctor who tells you point blank that you will die, when the record shows that most of them didn't?

That may be true, but as a critical care nurse, I can tell you that it is often not the case. Take, for example, a patient I had who had a Mallory-Weis tear in his stomach and esophagous. He was bleeding so severely that no amount of RBC replacement would help. He died. And I have so many similar stories that your position, which may be true in some cases, is simply not the case most often.

 

[JoStories]

Yes I understand that, but the body's ability to make red cells especially with the aid of substances like EPO, is amazing.Recovery is very rapid without transfusions.
Doctors are finding that even very low hemoglobin levels can be tolerated if the volume is kept up. What little red cells may be available are utilized rather than being compromised as the original video demonstrates.

Epogen is only given in extreme cases and carries its own serious risks. ESRD patients are given it prior to dialysis but it is very rare in any other cases, outside of cancer and the like. And epogen takes time to be effective. RBC replacement is immediate. Without RBC's, there is extremely limited O2 carrying capacity, as well as iron and so on. without those, organs such as the brain either die or are damaged in ways that are irreparable.

 

[JoStories]

For JW's there is no blood transfusion option....no matter what stage they have reached. Plasma volume expanders along with EPO administered has seen even medical emergencies overcome without the use of blood.

Plasma expanders do not have the ability to carry O2 to the organs. They are simply that, volume expanders. And there is a very delicate balance between the electrolyte system in our bodies. Too much or little salt, for example, can kill. The balance in the extracellular V the intracellular compartments is also very delicate and one side V the other that may be imbalanced can be lethal. So increasing volume, while it can help, can also kill.

 

[JoStories]

Who said anything about making modern clinical decisions based on ancient religious doctrine? These modern clinical decisions are being made because of what modern medical records are revealing. Blood is not now considered "good" medicine. In all the transfusions given only 12% were considered "necessary".
JW's are not part of the pie chart because for us NO transfusion is ever "necessary". Our stance has proven that medicine got it wrong...not us. We recover very well in the majority of cases without blood. The medical profession itself is grateful to us for providing the data needed to see this issue clearly.

That is a very broad and untrue assertion. In the case of children, medical professions have fought and won many cases of children who needed blood and their parents were JW's. It is one thing for an adult to make such a choice but a very different issue with children who have limited understanding of the ramifications of not receiving the blood. Furthermore, while doctors may respect the rights of JW's with regard to blood, at least those who are adults, one would be hard pressed to find doctors who believe that no blood is necessary in cases of extreme blood loss.

 

[JoStories]

The findings of the downside of blood transfusions are equally binding on our children. If the risk exists for adults, then they exist equally for children.
Misinformed judges making our children wards of the state to force blood transfusions on them is tantamount to sanctioning rape. Would you stand by and allow the authorities to violate your child's body under the mistaken notion that they are saving the child's life? Whose advice are they relying on to be accurate?...misinformed doctors.

What if the child dies as a result of the transfusion?....or contracts some deadly disease that was not screened for in the process? Who is at fault then?

the likelihood of contracting a disease via blood has been eradicated. Those days are now gone. Furthermore, your analogy is insulting to anyone who has been raped. Rape is not about survival whereas a blood transfusion is about survival in many cases. A child does not have the ability to use abstract thought before a certain age..about 10 or so. When they have, they can make those choices but for a 5 year old, life and death are magical issues. They cannot understand those concepts as you and I do.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The issue of overusing whole blood transfusions is one thing. But withholding such transfusions to those in the process of bleeding to death, particularly if it's a child, for any reason, is tantamount to murder.

Modern day human sacrifice.

 

[Shak34]

Modern day human sacrifice.

Agreed!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

he findings of the downside of blood transfusions are equally binding on our children. If the risk exists for adults, then they exist equally for children.

Death is, no matter how you try to spin it, a far greater risk.