New Scientist - Article on Blood Transfusions mentions JW's

by PopeOfEruke 6 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  PopeOfEruke

  Interesting reading in a recent New Scientist magazine - 26 April 2008 issue.

  

  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826533.500-could-blood-transfusions-actually-cause-harm.html

  To read the complete article you have to buy the magazine.

  Blood transfusions found to harm some patients

  • 26 April 2008
  • Rachel Nowak
  • Magazine issue 2653

  "For the life of the flesh is in the blood. No soul of you shall eat blood." So says the Bible's book of Leviticus, and it is for this reason that Jehovah's Witnesses shun blood transfusions. They do not, however, shun surgery. As long as surgeons use special techniques, Jehovah's Witnesses can have surgery - including operations with the greatest potential for blood loss, such as open-heart surgery - without ever receiving a drop of someone else's blood.

  Now some surgeons and anaesthetists are questioning whether every patient shouldn't get the same treatment. Over the past decade a number of studies have found that, far from saving lives, blood transfusions can actually harm many patients.

  The problem is not the much-publicised risk of blood-borne infectious agents, such as HIV, but the blood itself. Study after study has shown that transfusions, particularly those containing red blood cells, are linked to higher ...

  The complete article is 1361 words long.
• 

  PopeOfEruke

  Would be interesting to find out about Rachel Nowak and if she has any links to the JW's.

  In my opinion the article is quite pro-JW which is surprising considering The New Scientist's normally uncompromising stand against creationists in general....

  Pope
• 

  Bring_the_Light

  Well seems obvious to me. Pumping life into someone like that, clearly would cause damage. Maybe if the vaccine/autism link is firmly established, the super-old JW's will jump up from their wheelchairs and yell "BOOYAH!" we knew we was right that vaccination was evil befer these derned youngsters got their "new light".

  In all fairness, Jehovah's Witnesses have been excellent guinea pigs and have indeed contributed to science by being so. Now, we need "new light" which reveals that the key to salvation is volunteering for dangerous medical experiments and then we'll see the full measure of Jehovah's gift to medicine.
• 

  Bring_the_Light

  Would be interesting to find out about Rachel Nowak and if she has any links to the JW's.

  In my opinion the article is quite pro-JW which is surprising considering The New Scientist's normally uncompromising stand against creationists in general....

  Pope

  The guinea pig is the scientists best friend. I volunteered for a brain MRI study once, I have never had such a good friend in my life as the PhD running the study. If I requested a BJ in exchange for 30 more mins in the machine, I'm sure it could have been arranged.
• 

  PopeOfEruke

  B the L,

  yes, good point! I bet many doctors have appreciated JW's offering themselves up as guinea pigs in experiments with bloodless surgery over the years.

  All sing along now:

  "We're Jehovahs Witnesses,
  We get used as guinea pigs...."

  Pope
• 

  10p

  Why dont people read posts that are only 5 down in the list? Zico posted the entire article as well as the page 5 editorial.
  
  Rachel Nowak is a PhD and has been the Australasian editor of NewScientist for many years. her email is [email protected]
  
  I doubt she has any connection to the JWs, but then again, journalists take a lot of information on face value from various sources, so it could be her source information was produced/sponsored by the organisation ... and then again, maybe it is truly becoming apparent that blood isn't the be-all and end-all of medicine, and should be tested by modern methods like double-blind randomised trials to find where it is and isn't useful.
  
  I certainly wouldn't want a blood transfusion in a cholecystectomy (barring some major complications), but I would want one if I had lost most of my blood in a car accident.
  
  So like most of these issues between 'science' and 'religion', often neither are completely right, which is why there is an argument in the first place. JW's have rightly pointed out some of the bad side of blood transfusions, although not in an unbiased and medically helpful manner, but also go way too far by denying them when they truly are needed to prevent a persons death.
  
  Surgeons on the other hand have become accustomed to using this 'medicine' even though it hasn't been thoroughly tested like blood substitute products have to be tested. On the other hand (how many hands have you got? hehe) many deaths have been prevented by transfusions.
  
  Dont you hate it when people are all reasonable and look at both sides of the issue?
• 

  aniron

  Wasn't there also a study recently saying that "Blood alternatives" were dangerous?