Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Shak34]

One thing I don't understand is if the society is teaching its members that blood transfusions are bad then why were the JW noted to be part of the "Safe blood starts with me! Blood saves lives! World health day 2000. Page 53 of the link notes the presence of Jehovah Witnesses at the Second National Congress of Blood Banks. whqlibdoc.who.int

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is the medical profession itself....people who specialize in that field of medicine who are now saying that blood transfusions are NOT as "life saving" as was once thought. It is not ME saying so. Do you understand this? A "paradigm shift" is a complete change of mind on the issue.....and urgent change is recommended.

There are very few saying this. Of course some psychologists are saying sexual orientation can be changed and they present their findings, but that is an anthill compared to the mountain of psychologists and research that says otherwise. It is the same with doctors saying blood transfusions are unnecessary. Most will say that the alternatives are only suitable in certain circumstances, such as if the patient has not lost a critical amount of blood.

Most of what you say here is now shown to be outdated.

Then why is it current? Lobotomies are antiquated. Blood transfusions are still a current, and necessary, practice.

Also, taking your own blood and having it stored before a surgical procedure can lead to having a low blood count and cancelling of the surgery.

They don't take the blood out and send you straight to surgery.

 

[Deeje]

One thing I don't understand is if the society is teaching its members that blood transfusions are bad then why were the JW noted to be part of the "Safe blood starts with me! Blood saves lives! World health day 2000. Page 53 of the link notes the presence of Jehovah Witnesses at the Second National Congress of Blood Banks. whqlibdoc.who.int

Please feel free to quote anything about JW's on page 53 in this link.

 

[Aquitaine]

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

I'll trust medical science over mythology any day, sorry.

 

[Deeje]

And yet Olinda posted that your own publication, touting how proud they were of how these children-- I repeat...CHILDREN... died as a result of the parents refusing them the option of getting a blood transfusion. I can think of no alternative that would be acceptable over death. Not one. So your statement that "our outcomes are almost always good" seems a bit out of place, and rather myopic on your part. If you, as an adult, and I assume you are an adult, want to refuse blood despite being told you will die and then you do, that is your choice. I find that parents' refusing blood for children who cannot take a part in that choice nor do they have the ability to understand the abstract concepts of death and avoiding that, is in a word, reprehensible.

Jo, how can I respond to something like this when it is clear that you didn't even read the article regarding these kids whom the courts deemed to be "mature minors"? They were not forced by their parents to refuse blood. Their parents had no say under the law. These kids stood their ground on their own to stand up for what the Bible clearly outlines. If these children had diseases from which death was inevitable anyway, they did not see that prolonging their lives in this world was worth offending their God.....YES "THEIR" God. Please don't sell them short just because they are minors and disagree with your position. Who says you know better?

 

[Deeje]

I'll trust medical science over mythology any day, sorry.

You didn't watch the video either did you? The mythology is what exists now, not what has been discovered in recent times. Please inform yourself. The OP is not a JW video.

 

[Shak34]

Please feel free to quote anything about JW's on page 53 in this link.

Bet you didn't even look.

 

[Deeje]

I understand that, for you and those of your faith, this is what you consider best. I was incredibly fortunate to have parents who felt that children should be free to choose what religion, including none, worked best for us. I was exposed and taught about Christianity (my mother is a devout Baptist), atheism (my father was a life long atheist), Quakerism ( my favorite cousin), NA faiths (my grandmother was a NA), Judaism (our neighbors) and so on. We were not forced at all and when we reached the age of knowing what religion was truly about, we were given free choice. I can think of no better way to raise children.

I was incredibly fortunate to have parents who did the same...I still chose to be a JW in spite of being raised in Christendom.

Our children are not coerced to become JW's...they are free to make up their own minds once they are of age. We certainly encourage them to put God's thoughts and ways first in their lives but the choice is ultimately theirs. We are not considered JW's until we make our own personal dedication to God. A mature child can do that, others wait until they feel that they are ready, still others never make a dedication at all and wander off into the world which often chews them up and spits them out and in many cases, they come back to the place where they felt safe and protected.

 

[Deeje]

Bet you didn't even look.

I did actually but never found a thing on page 53. Can you quote it for me please and I can respond.

 

[Shak34]

I did actually but never found a thing on page 53. Can you quote it for me please and I can respond.

Hard to copy and paste exactly but it loaded for me just fine. Here is the link again. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/67276/1/WHO_BCT_01.03.pdf

Bottom of page 53 and top of 54: "Second National Congress of Blood Banks Within the framework of World Health Day 2000, Nicaragua organized its Second National Congress of Blood Banks. The event, which took place in Managua from 30 March to 1 April 2001, was in memory of Dr Ernesto López López, Director of the NBC who passed away in September 1999. The objectives of the Congress were to ensure a better service for donors and for those in need of blood, using quality controls at every level to minimize risks. 165 specialists attended the event, including physicians, nurses, experts in bioanalysis, laboratory technicians, safe blood advocates and students. Also invited were staff from hospitals, universities and clinics, and officials from the Ministry of Health, including the Second National Congress of Blood Banks “Of note was the presence of Jehovah Witnesses at the Congress.” 46 ▲ WORLD HEALTH DAY ▼ SAFE BLOOD STARTS WITH ME Minister, Members of the National Assembly, WHO and NGOs. Of particular note was the presence of Jehovah Witnesses at the event"

 

[Aquitaine]

You didn't watch the video either did you? The mythology is what exists now, not what has been discovered in recent times. Please inform yourself. The OP is not a JW video.

You're right: I have not seen the video. You other post on the first page where you quoted 1 Timothy 6:10 confirmed for me your intention behind this post.
Refuse a blood transfusion all you want - it'll only make you meet your creator sooner - but don't deny your kids access to one.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, it is ONE group of medical personnel reporting what they found and most of what they reference is antiquated. You are calling this a 'paradigmatic shift' where such is simply not the case. If, ten years from now, the shift actually did occur, I might be inclined to agree but as it stands right now, this is not the case.

The fact that the findings of this "International Consensus Conference on Transfusion and Outcomes" were made public 10 years ago speaks for itself. Blood transfusions are embedded in the psyche of medical practitioners and they stubbornly refuse to alter their practices. The findings of the conference suggested an urgent re-evaluation of this practice way back then....but what do we see? Who really knows the truth? These ones who have been sounding the warning for years, only to have it fall on deaf ears. How many lives have been lost in the interim because of blood transfusions, compared to the 'few' that made headlines because they refused?

You presented one video and some links that corroborate your views where the rest of us have presented many counter links which state that your group is flat out wrong. If you had one group, and some actually do still exist, that stated that Freud was correct in his psychoanalytic views, would you say that that then is a paradigmatic shift? Not even close. Freud has been debunked, with a few exceptions to his theorems. This is the same as you are trying to present here.

Is it Jo? Or is it more the case of the medical profession being reluctant to admit that they got it wrong? Imagine the law suits if it was proven that blood transfusions actually contributed to the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of patients?

Who signs a death certificate? Doctors can say that a patient died from X or Y and it would remain unchallenged if X or Y was in their medical history. But if the transfusion that the doctor administered was the actual cause of death...who would know? Doctors can 'get away with murder' apparently. If they keep going with the procedure, it sends the message that it's still safe....these specialist doctors have proven that it isn't. There are more sinister motives in this issue than most people realize.

 

[Deeje]

Hard to copy and paste exactly but it loaded for me just fine. Here is the link again. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/67276/1/WHO_BCT_01.03.pdf

Bottom of page 53 and top of 54: "Second National Congress of Blood Banks Within the framework of World Health Day 2000, Nicaragua organized its Second National Congress of Blood Banks. The event, which took place in Managua from 30 March to 1 April 2001, was in memory of Dr Ernesto López López, Director of the NBC who passed away in September 1999. The objectives of the Congress were to ensure a better service for donors and for those in need of blood, using quality controls at every level to minimize risks. 165 specialists attended the event, including physicians, nurses, experts in bioanalysis, laboratory technicians, safe blood advocates and students. Also invited were staff from hospitals, universities and clinics, and officials from the Ministry of Health, including the Second National Congress of Blood Banks “Of note was the presence of Jehovah Witnesses at the Congress.” 46 ▲ WORLD HEALTH DAY ▼ SAFE BLOOD STARTS WITH ME Minister, Members of the National Assembly, WHO and NGOs. Of particular note was the presence of Jehovah Witnesses at the event"

Thank you, it was a very long article.

The "presence of Jehovah's Witnesses" at an event such as this would be to glean information about the adverse effects of blood transfusions, which must have been used as the basis for their non-blood video presentations. We have several.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/no-blood-medicine-meets-challenge/

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/blood-transfusion-alternative-strategies/

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/blood-transfusion-patient-needs-rights/

We like to take our information right from the horse's mouth so to speak....not from second hand information presented by opposers.

 

[Deeje]

You're right: I have not seen the video. You other post on the first page where you quoted 1 Timothy 6:10 confirmed for me your intention behind this post.
Refuse a blood transfusion all you want - it'll only make you meet your creator sooner - but don't deny your kids access to one.

If you haven't watched the video, you are not qualified to address the OP.

 

[blue taylor]

I did watch the video, as I stated. I have addressed the OP, with a quote from the same website where the video came from. I got no answer. I guess there is something else that makes me not qualified to address OP?

 

[Shak34]

Thank you, it was a very long article.

The "presence of Jehovah's Witnesses" at an event such as this would be to glean information about the adverse effects of blood transfusions, which must have been used as the basis for their non-blood video presentations. We have several.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/no-blood-medicine-meets-challenge/

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/blood-transfusion-alternative-strategies/

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/blood-transfusion-patient-needs-rights/

We like to take our information right from the horse's mouth so to speak....not from second hand information presented by opposers.

That explanation could work if this was a medical convention that talked about both sides, this was about blood saving lives. There would have been no reason to be a involved in something that supports blood transfusions. Them going to something that is all about supporting blood transfusions just to get Info to state to contrary is a little deceiving.

 

[Curious George]

"It is estimated that the incidence of adverse outcome is 18:100 000 red blood cells issued for children aged less than 18 years and 37:100 000 for infants. The comparable adult incidence is 13:100 000. In order to decrease the risks associated with transfusion of blood products, various blood-conservation strategies can be utilized. Modalities such as acute normovolemic hemodilution, hypervolemic hemodilution, deliberate hypotension, antifibrinolytics, intraoperative blood salvage, and autologous blood donation are discussed and the pediatric literature is reviewed."

Lavoie, J. (2011), Blood transfusion risks and alternative strategies in pediatric patients. Pediatric Anesthesia, 21: 14–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03470.

"In the USA red blood cell transfusions, for instance, are given to an estimated 3–4 million patients per year. However, the accepted benefits of transfusion do not come without harm. Acute transfusion reactions have been estimated to occur in almost one-fifth of total transfusions, with serious reactions in approximately 0.5%."

Majed A. Refaai MD , Neil Blumberg MD.
The transfusion dilemma – Weighing the known and newly proposed risks of blood transfusions against the uncertain benefits. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology .March 2013, Vol.27(1):17–35, doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2012.12.006

Now, I am not saying that there aren't risks. Nor am I saying that alternatives to blood should not be researched and implemented. Any progress is good in my opinion. But let us not try to paint some dismal picture that blood transfusion is bad. Your source details that we are specifically talking about "some clinical situations" and that was regarding administration to the "critically ill" (tinmouth 2006). Your video also describes a 2008 study where blood transfusions were associated with increased morbidity and mortality in icu, trauma, and surgery. Both of these studies were very clearly only making conclusions about adults. And the last citation is a 2009 review that suggested in nearly 60% of cases blood transfusion was not beneficial.

This last study is unclear whether we are again talking about adults, or what studies were reviewed.

But, uncontested in your video is that in some instances, blood transfusion is both necessary and beneficial. If we are, moving towards better understanding the situations where blood transfusion is helpful vs. Harmful, that is fantastic. But no source has suggested that JW s got it right, no source suggests that all blood transfusion should be refused, and no source suggests that blood transfusion is bad (especially not because god said so).

Should we be critical of an accepted practice such as blood transfusion...you betcha. Should we continue to strive for better outcomes, both with blood products and alternatives? Hell yeah. Should we for one moment side with religion over the best available evidence when a child's life hangs in the balance? Nope.

Cheers

 

[Aquitaine]

If you haven't watched the video, you are not qualified to address the OP.

Perhaps so, though what was your intention with this thread: some sort of vindication for JWs who have cited religious reasons for denying their sick children blood transfusions?

 

[Pudding]

(link in the op)
A video explaining the results of a studies.
There're no peer reviews to verify its validity, that means the studies' results is facts...

Tips to making facts.
1. Post a video which explain the results of a studies to a website or find it from a website.
2. Make a thread in a debate forum and present the video as facts.
3. The results of that studies become facts.

 

[Deeje]

That explanation could work if this was a medical convention that talked about both sides, this was about blood saving lives. There would have been no reason to be a involved in something that supports blood transfusions. Them going to something that is all about supporting blood transfusions just to get Info to state to contrary is a little deceiving.

Perhaps they were invited...did you ever think of that?

I think its strange when people jump to conclusions.....why do you do that? Why must there be a sinister motive to whatever we do? It wouldn't matter what it was, our opposers would find something to complain about even if there was nothing to complain about. We kind of expect that, you know....