Blood is a multi million dollar business. It is not the "life saving" procedure that most people have been led to believe it is.
The American Red Cross provides approximately 40% of the blood supply in the United States through voluntary blood donations. Blood products collected are thoroughly screened and donors must meet specific criteria to donate.
The
American Red Cross is also a non-profit, humanitarian organization that doesn't make money from blood. It only recooperates costs for the supplies, processes and professionals needed to collect, screen and provide blood products.
I have no desire to debate the practices of this organization.
My intentions by sharing this information are only to educate you. You can learn more about what this organization does through the provided link.
Many who can donate blood in America, consider their blood donation a special way to give back to their communities. My father has been donating blood since my childhood.
Google the dangers of blood transfusions.
I have. So, I'm sure that you're also aware that the majority of side effects and reaction to blood transfusion are quite minor. Most reactions can be detected early on in a transfusion and the procedure will be stopped or adjusted.
Then try the actual cost of a blood transfusion.
Blood transfusions are insanely priced.
You're bringing up very distinct issues that deserve their own attention.
The high cost of medical procedures and treatment is a convoluted issue in and of itself. Whether or not a blood transfusion or blood products are genuinely needed, is another and needs to be considered in situational context.
Businesses and organizations that collect and "sell" blood products should be evaluated individually, as they don't all operate the same.
Then, of course, personal convictions on receiving blood products for religious or non religious reasons are one or more issues to contemplate.
Then Google bloodless surgery. See for yourself why it is still promoted even though the risks are well documented.
The dangers associated with blood transfusion are relatively low in the United States. Severe and life threatening complications (from blood transfusion) are very rare.
There are different types of transfusions as well. Blood it often separated into at least three components: red blood cells, plasma and platelets. These components (and others in blood) can be used separately to treat a variety of illnesses.
Blood products will continue to be "promoted" as blood can only be
replaced by blood.
Whether or not an individual genuinely needs whole blood or a component of blood to sustain life isn't something that we can speak to in blanket label terms, as this is highly contingent upon the prognosis of the patient.
An alternative therapy may yield the same (or better) results and may be much less expensive. But, the fact remains that an alternative therapy may not be best suited for a patient in a particular situation.
Where there are vast amounts of money to be made, there is always corruption. Whose world are we living in?
There's corruption everywhere.
Not every organization that collects blood appears to be making "vasts amount of money" from their endeavors. I consider costs for blood therapy to be a separate, convoluted issue worthy of its own discussion.
have countless brothers and sisters who were told point blank that they would die without blood. None of them did.
I'm thankful that they didn't perish and I understand your concern. It is problematic to be expected to utilize products that conflict with your religious convictions and that may not be necessary to treat specific ailments or to assist you during a medical crisis.
I understand this and believe that your rights should be protected and that your doctors should be legally obligated to respect your wishes.
However, I also see potential for conflict. For one, if a physician genuinely feels that blood therapy would save a life or improve recovery in a situation, I wouldn't fault them for referring you to another physician, if you refuse the therapy needed.
During an emergency situation, medical professionals should be providing treatment that is the most quick and efficient to sustain life. That is their job.
You should be able to communicate your needs and your needs should be considered whenever feasible.
As a parent, I would question another parent who would forego blood therapy in favor of alternative medicine if they've been educated by a physician that blood therapy is the more conducive option for recovery or survival.
On the other hand, I would take issue with a physician foregoing the wishes of a parent in favor of blood therapy, if it's not necessary to yield the same or comparable results.
I respect your right to your religious beliefs and to make the decisions that you feel are best, given your convictions. What concerns me are blanket label statements, when, much relating to this topic would really need to be reviewed in situational context.
There's a sigificant difference between an emergency situation that requires immediate action and decisions vs. those situations to where conversations regarding preferences can be had.
I don't have the statistics to review, but, I would imagine that statistically, the number of JWs dying annually because they refuse blood products is probably quite low. However, I do question how one can reconcile God's commandment that we should not kill with the concept of rejecting a procedure that could save your life or another's. Be mindful, in context, here, I'm speaking as to the instance when by failing to accept blood products, death occurs.
Many more people die who have had blood transfusions.
I wasn't aware that there are solid statistics available for comparison in this regard. I'm interested in your source.
It is no coincidence that the human circulatory system is compatible with ordinary sea water. Saline can save your life just as easily and more safely than blood,
Yes, but, only if the body has adequate
enough red blood cells after a blood loss to sustain oxygenation to tissues.
The person who has lost close to half of their blood supply, may require blood products for life sustainment. Volume expanders help, but, they aren't responsible for oxygenating. Your red blood cells would still need to be sufficient enough in numbers to sustain oxygenation. If alternate therapies (such as oxygen therapy in conjunction with volume expanders) are available and would yield the same results, then, they should be used if that's the patients wishes and the patient can reasonably communicate these wishes.
which was forbidden by God's law and was restated as a necessary thing for Christians. Blood is sacred to God. It is the very symbol of life itself. Consuming the blood of another physically is repugnant and forbidden in God's word.
Differences in biblical interpretation.
I am bound to God's commandments too, but, this is not a commandment that carried over to the new covenant. And consumption is defined differently by different people.
Respectfully, I don't know anyone other than the JWs who consider blood via IV as a form of "consumption".
it's amazing how much dropping dairy, or at least severely restricting it, can help health.
JW's had nothing to do with this, did they?
