Pro JW newspaper article on Blood transfusions

by jwfacts 3 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jwfacts

  The following article appear at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/05/27/1180205077463.html

  It makes some interesting pro JW observations such as:

  • Not having a blood transfusion can increase the change of survival
  • Synthetic blood now has oxygen carrying capabities

  However, before the WTS gets carried away it also says

  • there are situations that blood is essential
  • keeping your own blood (which should extend to tranfusing your own blood) is optimal

  Treating patients like Jehovah's Witnesses could save lives: expert

  Dan Oakes
  May 28, 2007

  SURGEONS could save lives by treating people as if they were Jehovah's Witnesses, a visiting US specialist told a conference yesterday.

  Addressing the the annual scientific meeting of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, cardiothoracic specialist Bruce Spiess said blood transfusions hurt more people than they helped.

  Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusions, but Professor Spiess said a study in Sweden of 499 Witnesses showed their survival rates were higher than people who received transfusions.

  He described blood transfusions as "almost a religion", because physicians practised them without any solid evidence that they helped.

  "Blood transfusion has evolved as a medical therapy and it's never been tested like a major drug," he said. "A drug is tested for safety and efficacy, blood transfusion has never been tested for either one.

  "There's a number of people around the world who are coming to these same conclusions and it's becoming more obvious that the old risks of hepatitis and AIDS have been defeated by blood bankers, and now what we're dealing with are events that make patients worse."

  Transfusions increased the probability of post-operative complications, including pneumonia and wound infections.

  "I think we need to focus on every possible mechanism we can to keep your own blood," Professor Spiess said.

  "If you come to surgery, we should ethically treat every patient as if they were a Jehovah's Witness and say, my goal is to not to transfuse you and to use every other technique I possibly can, and then only as a very last result transfuse you."

  He emphasised that in cases of severe trauma, blood transfusions were necessary, but pointed out that the majority of transfusions were of comparatively small amounts of blood.

  Another area in which Professor Spiess is prominent is that of synthetic blood, which is composed of teflon-like fluorocarbons that carry oxygen far better than our own blood.

  "We've just completed a study with traumatic brain injury — you're talking motor vehicle accidents and guns and head trauma — and we've just had a dramatic breakthrough with head trauma using the fluorocarbons as a way to deliver oxygen to the traumatised brain."

  Professor Spiess is also researching the use of synthetic blood as a cure for decompression sickness, on behalf of the US Navy.
• 

  jwfacts

  I think this publicity may put the WTS in a position where it does not feel it necessary to make many more changes to its current blood policy, particularly if substitutes now have oxygen carrying capablity.

  The main problem now with the blood issue it that it is illogical not to be allowed blood but to be allowed blood fractions. It is illogical to be allowed blood fractions but not to be allowed to donate blood. But since when has logic and Watchtower dogma even coincided?
• 

  sass_my_frass

  No doubt a significant amount of HLC propaganda is behind this article. It sounds like they've just reprinted a Shannon Farmer press release. I'm a blood donor now, and I'm horrified at the lies I was convinced of only a few years ago thanks to those guys. There's a big difference between convincing a cardiothoracic surgeon to use a laser scalpel and bleeding out in the ER with no chance of survival after a car accident. JWs however will read this article and believe that the entire medical profession thinks they're heroes.
• 

  Gill

  I don't think this Dr says too much that most of us don't agree with anyway.

  Blood is a risky 'medicine', but there are many occassions when it is the ONLY treatment that can save or even prolong a life and JWs are denied that option. They are also denied the option of 'saving' their own blood for planned surgery. There are many leukaemia patients who continue to live because of regular blood transfusion.

  Blood continues to carry the risk of disease, we all agree. BUT still, as already said, sometimes it is ALL that is available. A lot of surgeons already try to operate without using blood and pride themselves on minimum blood loss in their patients. Do they only do this because of the Jehovah's Witness ban, or because that is good practice any way? I'd suggest it is because it is good practice and they're professional people and not butchers.

  I'm sure the HLC will love this article, after all the bloke talks sense. BUT, they still insist on death rather than emergency transfusion and that is something this article does NOT agree with. I'm sure they won't be pointing that part out in a hurry.