Hemodilution: A new secret change in blood Policy ?

by chasson 23 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  chasson

  Take a look at the forum of NoBlood.org, a website maintaining by some JW like Larry Eitel and Jan B. Wade (this last is a founder of SABM too). Jan B. Wade made here a curious remark concerning hemodilution:

  "There has been some refinement in what a Jehovah's Witness patient may or may not accept. Some Jehovah's Witnesses may not require the blood to be kept in a directely connected line. For these patients two or three units might be removed and kept standing by in the room for reinfusion. Other patients might want the removed blood to be attached to a return line that is actually connected to their body. It is up to the individual patient to decide."

  Well, Jan said "some individual want the removed blood to be attached to a return line that is actually connected to their body"... Hum, only "some individual", I think that it was the justification of the use of this technology by JW, no ? It was ok, because the blood was still in contact with the body of the JW, so the blood was viewed as not stored and not necessitated to be poured on the ground. Now, if the blood is not in contact with the body of the patient, it is stored so, from the logic of the JW's theology, it must be poured on the ground, no ?

  If it is true we have the proof that JW now can accept blood transfusion of whole blood and not only fraction because blood can be stored and reinfused after to a JW. Yes it is an autologous transfusion, but this is not what it is important concerning the JW's theology.

  If a Jw can accept autologous transfusion because the blood was outside his body and not in contact with his body for several hours, why not accept ALL autologous transfusion, and even more, why not accept all allogenic blood transfusion.

  This change is the most important never seen for me, there are now No theological justification to all blood transfusion.

  http://www.noblood.org/transfusion-alternatives/2662-question-re-hemodilution.html

  Bye

  Charles
• 

  mia_b

  A few too many big medical words for me to understand but

  Now, if the blood is not in contact with the body of the patient, it is stored so, from the logic of the JW's theology, it must be poured on the ground, no ?

  i understand that bit - i agree it doesn't seem logical.

  I still hav a problem retraining my thinking regarding blood - its so ingrained that its wrong!

  So I will keep anything like that link to look at and understand more, cheers

  mia
• 

  chasson

  sorry for my english, i am french.

  Hemodilution, is the medical technique to extract some of your blood before surgery and stored it in some bag, and during surgery, the medical staff could on demand reinject this blood in your body.

  This technique was autorized or 'let to the conscience' to JW, only if there was a contact between the blood's bag and your body, in this case, it was viewed as an externalisation of your own blood circuit, it was not viewed as extra-corporal blood, so this blood was not viewed as must be poured in harmony with Leveticus 17.

  If the blood is not in contact with the body of th JW, theologically it must be poured. If it is now viewed as OK. So all whole blood transfusion must be viewed as OK by the JW.

  It is very important that this info must be spread, even if my english is awfull, please take the time to understand what this stupid frenchy try to tell you !!!

  Bye

  Charles
• 

  dozy

  This is an interesting development. The WTS policy was always that the blood could not be “stored” , but that it may be allowable for it to be circulated in an external circulatory system (provided that it was primed with a non-blood substance) - the argument being that the blood wasn’t actually leaving the body.

  The WTS have always tacitly allowed these systems - in the UK , Jws collect money to buy “Cell Savers” and other machines for hospitals , so most Jws are happy with the arrangement , concluding that it must have the blessing of the WTS. About 15 machines have been purchased , costing about 80,000 pounds.

  http://www.wsh.nhs.uk/News/News-2003/New%20blood%20machine%20donated%20to%20West%20Suffolk%20Hospital.htm

  Many Jws initially refuse such treatment , but when they are told by HLC elders that the WTS encourages Jws to buy such machines and donate them to hospitals , they rapidly change their minds and allow such treatment.

  As discussed in another thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/128773/1.ashx the WTS rarely speak about the belief that blood is to be poured out . HIS sources confirm that quietly abandoning this belief this is the next “refinement” in the policy , subject to a GB vote (the last one narrowly failed to reach 75% acceptance , much to the frustration of HIS).
  
• 

  chasson

  So Dozy, it seems the GB has voted OK to storage his own blood?

  Bye

  Charles
• 

  hawkaw

  Not to burst your bubble too much but isovolemic hemodilution and intraoperative autotransfusions (cell salvage) have been allowed for some time.

  Please note http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/what.shtml

  Frankly, these are whole or red blood cell tranfusions. It may not be from the donated blood supply but it is still a transfusion of your own blood.

  So ask yourself .... does the leadership promote a policy whereby Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood?

  Please tell a friend about www.ajwrb.org to prevent premature death.

  hawk
• 

  shadow

  A similar topic that may be of interest.

  http://www.noblood.org/general-discussions/697-cell-salvage-irradiation-jehovahs-witnesses.html
• 

  chasson

  Not to burst your bubble too much but isovolemic hemodilution and intraoperative autotransfusions have been allowed for some time.

  Please note http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/what.shtml

  I am not saying that it is the autorization of hemodilution who is the new policy but the conditions of this hemodilution.

  Well, it is difficult to make me understand:

  *** w89 3/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
  What about induced hemodilution? Some surgeons believe that it is advantageous for a patient’s blood to be diluted during surgery. Thus, at the start of an operation, they direct some blood to storage bags outside a patient’s body and replace such with nonblood fluids; later, the blood is allowed to flow from the bags back to the patient. Since Christians do not let their blood be stored, some physicians have adapted this procedure, arranging the equipment in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient’s circulatory system. Some Christians have accepted this, others have refused. Again, each individual must decide whether he would consider the blood diverted in such a hemodilution circuit to be similar to that flowing through a heart/lung machine, or he would think of it as blood that left him and therefore should be disposed of.
  (end of quote)

  In 1989, the justification of the use of hemodilution was if you use a "circuit that is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system" you have the right to use hemodilution. This circuit was considered as an extant of your own circulatory system.

  But now, you don't have to make a circuit to use hemodilution, so practically you store your own blood and you receive after that a transfusion of your own blood.

  I know that the theology of JW concerning blood issue is now so sophisticated and difficult that even a pharisee would have some problems to understand all the subtilities, but by this subtil change, the GB has autorized the store of blood, and has opened the door to all type of blood transfusion, even if they had not realized what they decided.

  Bye

  Charles
• 

  BluesBrother

  If the permission to accept hemodilution that involved the storage of blood, even temporarily, were to come through the WT sources - then I would agree that it would be a major departure . As far as I can see, this is still the current viewpoint by "The Society"

  hb

  p.27Jehovah’sWitnesses—TheSurgical/EthicalChallenge***[ How Can Blood Save Your Life}

  Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood. Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them. However, many Witnesses permit the use of dialysis and heart-lung equipment (non-blood-prime) as well as intraoperative salvage where the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted; the physician should consult with the individual patient as to what his conscience dictates. 2
• 

  willyloman

  If the permission to accept hemodilution that involved the storage of blood, even temporarily, were to come through the WT sources - then I would agree that it would be a major departure .

  You're right, of course, this isn't directly from "mother" so it's not JW policy... yet. But noblood.org is a useful tool for the WTS and is one of the resources they are using in a long range, unannounced plan to phase out their no-blood doctrine without (they hope) running the risk of a class action suit. So if you see it at noblod.org, you know it's been discussed at Brooklyn.