Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Modern day human sacrifice.

Agreed!

A guy's artery in his leg has spewed most of his blood onto the street. He will die in minutes if a transfusion is not administered. How is it a human sacrifice to withhold the transfusion and let him die rather than save his life which has been done millions of times? How could anyone possibly come up with human sacrifice? Beyond comprehension.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A guy's artery in his leg has spewed most of his blood onto the street. He will die in minutes if a transfusion is not administered. How is it a human sacrifice to withhold the transfusion and let him die rather than save his life which has been done millions of times? How could anyone possibly come up with human sacrifice? Beyond comprehension.

The sacrifice certainly isn't giving blood, because I've done that several times with it only costing a few minutes of my time.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The sacrifice certainly isn't giving blood, because I've done that several times with it only costing a few minutes of my time.

Yeah, the brick wall started to crumble, so hey, they just throw more bricks on it. (Sorry, best analogy I could come up with on such short notice.)

If you're gonna bring up the subject, let me just add:

I guess we can add transfusions now.

 

[Pudding]

@Deeje

Are blood tranfusion really life saving?
"No, blood tranfusion is not life saving."

Many wounded patients who lose some/many bloods who needs blood transfusion medical care receive blood tranfusion medical care and their life was save, they recover and continue to live.
"Blood tranfusion is not life saving."
Blood tranfusion medical care does not save those people lifes?
Those people is not alive? They're zombies?

There're never any wounded patient who lose some/many bloods who receive no-blood-tranfusion medical care dies during or not long after receive no-blood-tranfusion medical care (dies from their wound and blood loss) ?
No-blood-tranfusion medical care is a life saver that guranteed to save those patient from dieing from their wound and blood loss?

Does the op think blood tranfusion is not life saving?
What is op's definition for "live saving"?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Nope, I'm not ignoring any evidence. It makes not one iota of difference to me whether blood transfusions are better in the majority or worse in the majority...they are beneficial in some instances and if medical professionals are saying they are beneficial then the parents should be listening. If there is a lack of awareness as to potential harms and alternatives, then by all means the doctors should be aware, and not doing so is neglecting their professional duties on which we rely. That said, if medical professionals deem it necessary, then parent or religion should not stand in the way of life saving procedure. If the doctors acted negligently, that can be addressed afterwards. But, in the case of a five-year old, I am going to back the medical professionals, not the internet educated parents for whom there is already a question of rationality since "faith" is a controlling factor in their decision.

 

[Pudding]

You created the strawman that you are now attacking...... What people do about the information that is contained in the video is their personal choice...not mine.
It is doctors saying that transfusions are not safe, I am just passing on the information for anyone who might be interested.
Our stance is scriptural, not medical. But the video shows that our position is not without merit.

Please explain what strawman i have create and why you think it's strawman.

By the way you have create straw man argument.
I'm asking will you responsible for their deaths if you're wrong.

Never have i imply anything about what people do about the information that is contained in the video is not their personal choice but your choice.

 

[Pudding]

Any peer review for that Australian Government studies?

 

[Deeje]

Does the op think blood tranfusion is not life saving?
What is op's definition for "live saving"?

Since the general theme of this thread has been overlooked by the majority who don't seem to want to confront the reality of the information presented in the OP, may I just remind the posters here that no one said a transfusion "cannot" save someone's life in a dire emergency. Let me make that clear. But let me also assure you that when a doctor tells a patient that they WILL die without blood and the patient refuses and not only lives, but recovers in record time and with fewer complications than someone who through fear, accepted the blood in the same circumstances, believing what the doctor told them.....can I just say that what doctors have is an opinion...their opinions can be wrong. They themselves are saying now that their attitude towards blood in medicine has changed. Is anyone listening? They are now confirming that "the risks outweigh the benefits" in the majority of cases.

For those who want to keep doing what they have always done...no one is stopping you. For JW's the way is clear and always has been, but for those who rely on medical science to keep abreast of current medical practice and steer them in the right direction, have any of you listened to the evidence from the doctors who are specialists in this field?

 

[Pudding]

Where is the peer review for their studies?

 

[Pudding]

Since the general theme of this thread has been overlooked by the majority who don't seem to want to confront the reality of the information presented in the OP, may I just remind the posters here that no one said a transfusion "cannot" save someone's life in a dire emergency. Let me make that clear. But let me also assure you that when a doctor tells a patient that they WILL die without blood and the patient refuses and not only lives, but recovers in record time and with fewer complications than someone who through fear, accepted the blood in the same circumstances, believing what the doctor told them.....can I just say that what doctors have is an opinion...their opinions can be wrong. They themselves are saying now that their attitude towards blood in medicine has changed. Is anyone listening? They are now confirming that "the risks outweigh the benefits" in the majority of cases.

For those who want to keep doing what they have always done...no one is stopping you. For JW's the way is clear and always has been, but for those who rely on medical science to keep abreast of current medical practice and steer them in the right direction, have any of you listened to the evidence from the doctors who are specialists in this field?

What is your definition for "live saving"?

 

[LuisDantas]

You didn't watch the video either, did you?

This is not a JW video...it is an Australian Government video exposing the dangers of blood transfusions and highly qualified doctors confirming that this standard practice has to stop. The only ones to lose in this situation are the ones who don't listen and blindly maintain the status quo.
You forget that blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry. There is a financial incentive to keep it going. (1 Tim 6:10)

The video does not call for the end of blood transfusions. It claims that they are not without risk (which is not at all news) and that they are abused (which is probably true, although I would be hard pressed to guess whether they are being too alarmist).

That is a very far call from saying that they "must stop".

 

[Deeje]

The video does not call for the end of blood transfusions. It claims that they are not without risk (which is not at all news) and that they are abused (which is probably true, although I would be hard pressed to guess whether they are being too alarmist).

That is a very far call from saying that they "must stop".

Who said they must stop? I am amazed at the way people read into posts, things that were never there.
These are the strawmen that are created in the minds of those who think they must oppose our view at all cost, but they have nothing to do with the OP.

Are blood transfusions as truly "life saving" as the medical profession once thought? The answer is clearly NO! It is the specialist doctors themselves who say so.

If these doctors are now becoming "alarmist" over what was once considered a safe medical practice, shouldn't the public sit up and take notice?

The purpose of the thread is to inform. What anyone does with the information is up to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are blood transfusions as truly "life saving" as the medical profession once thought? The answer is clearly NO! It is the specialist doctors themselves who say so.

Having multiple blood transfusions was pretty much the "base" treatment that kept my best friend alive when she have a severely complicated miscarriage. Everything else, such as the heavy doses of antibiotics, wouldn't have done any good if she didn't have blood pumped back into her.
My mom, after she gave birth to me, she lost so much blood that she went into shock and would have died had it not been for the blood the doctors pumped into her.
It's not just the doctors saying this, but anyone with any base-level understanding of biology and knowing that without blood organs shut down and the body dies.

 

[Deeje]

Having multiple blood transfusions was pretty much the "base" treatment that kept my best friend alive when she have a severely complicated miscarriage. Everything else, such as the heavy doses of antibiotics, wouldn't have done any good if she didn't have blood pumped back into her.
My mom, after she gave birth to me, she lost so much blood that she went into shock and would have died had it not been for the blood the doctors pumped into her.
It's not just the doctors saying this, but anyone with any base-level understanding of biology and knowing that without blood organs shut down and the body dies.

Anecdotal evidence is not the basis for this thread. I have anecdotal evidence too for my own side of this issue....the message from these medical specialists is not ambiguous. The opening remarks in the video are enough to make you watch the rest and take to heart the message. There has been a "paradigm shift"....a complete change of mind based on clinical studies.
In "42 out of 45 patient studies, (involving 272,590 patients) the risk of transfusion was found to outweigh the benefits".
Patients who received blood transfusions were more "exposed to morbidity (adverse outcome) and mortality" (death) than those who had the same procedures without blood.
By their own admission, almost 90% of blood transfusions are unnecessary and even dangerous. Which applies to children too.

Please understand that this is an emotive issue that raises the ire of many....but doctors are admitting that blood is not the "life saving" medicine they once thought it to be....that is the message....but who is listening?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anecdotal evidence is not the basis for this thread. I have anecdotal evidence too for my own side of this issue....the message from these medical specialists is not ambiguous. The opening remarks in the video are enough to make you watch the rest and take to heart the message. There has been a "paradigm shift"....a complete change of mind based on clinical studies.

It isn't anecdotal evidence, but biological fact. And what were the doctors to do? You have a patient who looses enough blood to cause death, there is no saving them unless blood is put back into them, and many organs, such as the brain, cannot wait for the body to produce its own.

 

[Deeje]

It isn't anecdotal evidence, but biological fact. And what were the doctors to do? You have a patient who looses enough blood to cause death, there is no saving them unless blood is put back into them, and many organs, such as the brain, cannot wait for the body to produce its own.

If you watched the video, it was stated by Prof. Aryeh Shander (Chief of Anesthesiology At Englewood Hospital New Jersey) that even the most profound anemia can be quickly and sustainably treated and corrected without using blood.

The video also showed what happens when blood is used compared to a volume expander. There is your evidence, right there. The transfusion compromised oxygen delivery, whereas the saline facilitated it. If you haven't watched the video, then please do.

 

[Curious George]

Anecdotal evidence is not the basis for this thread. I have anecdotal evidence too for my own side of this issue....the message from these medical specialists is not ambiguous. The opening remarks in the video are enough to make you watch the rest and take to heart the message. There has been a "paradigm shift"....a complete change of mind based on clinical studies.
In "42 out of 45 patient studies, (involving 272,590 patients) the risk of transfusion was found to outweigh the benefits".
Patients who received blood transfusions were more "exposed to morbidity (adverse outcome) and mortality" (death) than those who had the same procedures without blood.
By their own admission, almost 90% of blood transfusions are unnecessary and even dangerous. Which applies to children too.

Please understand that this is an emotive issue that raises the ire of many....but doctors are admitting that blood is not the "life saving" medicine they once thought it to be....that is the message....but who is listening?

Hmmm....let us go over this. First, does your source say this applies to children? Do you have any source that says this applies to children?

Next, given the overuse of blood transfusion and also the factor that a blood transfusion can cause harm, does this in anyway negate the fact that in some instances blood transfusions are necessary?

Next, if presented with a scenario where a blood transfusion was believed by medical professionals to be the only means of saving your child's life, but they needed your approval, what do you do? Why?

 

[Deeje]

Hmmm....let us go over this. First, does your source say this applies to children? Do you have any source that says this applies to children?

Is this a serious question? If the majority of blood transfusions are unnecessary and even harmful to adults, how can they be harmless to children?

Next, given the overuse of blood transfusion and also the factor that a blood transfusion can cause harm, does this in anyway negate the fact that in some instances blood transfusions are necessary?

In the patient studies, less that 12% of transfusions were deemed "necessary".....but obviously not by the specialist doctors like Prof Shander who asserts that even the most profound anemia can be treated quickly and sustainably without using blood. It seems to depend on the doctor and his own personal position on blood and blood products. We would choose a doctor who is up to date and on board with bloodless medicine.

Next, if presented with a scenario where a blood transfusion was believed by medical professionals to be the only means of saving your child's life, but they needed your approval, what do you do? Why?

This is not the case in any state that I know of. Given the current situation, most doctors who insist on using blood and would force a transfusion against the parent's wishes, would be betraying the fact that he/she has not kept up to date with current knowledge or practice. Judges who take that doctor's word for things will be equally misled.

As far as I am aware, most doctors will do their very best to comply with the parent's wishes, but have the final say legally over what they do. We have no power under the law to prevent this. Though bringing in other more informed doctors has sometimes alleviated a tense situation, allowing the child to be treated by someone with more respect for the parent's wishes and who can confidently treat the child without blood.

 

[JoStories]

Nope, I'm not ignoring any evidence. It makes not one iota of difference to me whether blood transfusions are better in the majority or worse in the majority...they are beneficial in some instances and if medical professionals are saying they are beneficial then the parents should be listening. If there is a lack of awareness as to potential harms and alternatives, then by all means the doctors should be aware, and not doing so is neglecting their professional duties on which we rely. That said, if medical professionals deem it necessary, then parent or religion should not stand in the way of life saving procedure. If the doctors acted negligently, that can be addressed afterwards. But, in the case of a five-year old, I am going to back the medical professionals, not the internet educated parents for whom there is already a question of rationality since "faith" is a controlling factor in their decision.

A couple of points here. The doctors who deem blood to be necessary must get patient consent before giving the blood and that includes a discussion of the risk factors and the pros and cons. Secondly, there are times when a patient can choose to refuse life saving procedures for many reasons. For example, a patient with cancer who is overtly dying and does not wish any further treatment other than palliative care. Diseases that can be treated with alternative methods rather than medical procedures or drugs. For example, I have severe rheumatoid arthritis and have been offered many drugs that have very serious side effects. That is my choice. My rheumatologist did not like it and strongly advised me otherwise but ultimately, it was and is my choice. However, I do agree that parents should not withhold life saving blood from a child when that child would die without it.

 

[JoStories]

Since the general theme of this thread has been overlooked by the majority who don't seem to want to confront the reality of the information presented in the OP, may I just remind the posters here that no one said a transfusion "cannot" save someone's life in a dire emergency. Let me make that clear. But let me also assure you that when a doctor tells a patient that they WILL die without blood and the patient refuses and not only lives, but recovers in record time and with fewer complications than someone who through fear, accepted the blood in the same circumstances, believing what the doctor told them.....can I just say that what doctors have is an opinion...their opinions can be wrong. They themselves are saying now that their attitude towards blood in medicine has changed. Is anyone listening? They are now confirming that "the risks outweigh the benefits" in the majority of cases.

For those who want to keep doing what they have always done...no one is stopping you. For JW's the way is clear and always has been, but for those who rely on medical science to keep abreast of current medical practice and steer them in the right direction, have any of you listened to the evidence from the doctors who are specialists in this field?

I absolutely agree that medicine is constantly changing and many times, conditions can be treated without blood. OTOH, there are cases where it is not only necessary but life saving. Those are the cases I believe we are discussing here. Doctors do resist change and often believe they are right and will not budge. This is the case with blood as well. There are times, as I said, when it may not be necessary and any adult absolutely has the right to refuse. There are times, however, when the patient may not be able to express their opinions; coma patients, emergent situations, etc. In those cases, doctors generally do what they feel is in the best interest of the patient. I have no problem with an adult wanting to refuse any treatment they feel is against their beliefs, or simply because they don't want it. I have issues, however, when a parent makes a choice that will end the life of that child. In those cases, which as fairly unusual, I would advocate for the child and not the parents.