Elder said people "rarely" die from refusing a blood transfusion

by InterestedOne 48 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • cyberjesus

    they dont die from refusing the transfusion they die from not getting it.

  • cantleave

    WTF wsould most elders know? One unnecessary death is one too many.

  • Snoozy

    I agree with a lot of the things they say about taking a blood transfusion. They are admitting more an dmore that the screening process isn't foolproof and is less accurate than many think it is.

    i would have ot be pretty low in order to accept a transfusion.

    Something that the WTBTS taught was that if a Dr thinks you won't take blood they may be more careful when operating..

    Don't know how true that is anymore.

    They do have more and more hospitals operationg without blood, we even have a hospital that advertises that fact.

    Still I have this deep down feeling that they have second rate DRs that work there..Don't know why. It's probably just the opposite.

    I think my fears are left over from a Witness recommended Dr that operated on me and I later found out his nickname was Dr Butcher among the resident nurses....I almost bled to death. Thankfully the attending anesthesiologist Dr caught it and gave me Ringers Lactaid solution in both arms..I was so weak I could barely walk. After that I just had the feeling that only desperate Drs would take the witnesses as patients. That was back in the 60's and not that many would even consider operating without having an OK to give blood in an emergency. Yu had to take whatever you could find.

    But my reasons for not taking blood are strictly because of the health issues arising from taking blood, not because of any of the JW teachings.


    In my opinion tho, a lot of witness children have died from their parents refusal to give them blood. Most of the time the children had a life threatning illness such as Luekemia in which case the transfusion would just be used to give them a little more time.

  • VM44

    "He said people "rarely" die from refusing a blood transfusion."

    Can the Elder M.D. who said that be held accountable?

    He probably won't even remember having said it a year from now!

  • the-illuminator81

    There is a reason that the literature does not make the statements that this elder does. Statements like this can get you in BIG LEGAL TROUBLE. How much experience does this elder have with administering blood transfusions? How many years did he study medicine? None? Ok.. so how much value should we give to his remarks? Also none.

    I guess it's OK if i'm a serial killer, but I only kill one person a year, because that would mean that I rarely kill people, i mean there are 364 days a year where I don't kill anybody, so I'm not so bad after all.

    Religion is all fine and dandy until they start killing people. This elder is killing people with his ridiculous and flawed statements. He should be jailed.

  • designs

    All I can tell is having a beautiful young mother die in childbirth from massive blood loss was the turning point in my years as an Elder.

  • TD

    On thing to observe in conversations like this with JW's is that they will always, always, always try to confine the discussion into a question of the administration of red cells in scheduled surgery to counter surgical blood loss. This is an area where Jehovah's Witnesses fair pretty well. There are bloodless medical centers in every major city of the developed world.

    But there are many other transfusion scenarios. Let's consider trauma for example. Is there a "bloodless" trauma center anywhere in the world? I'm not aware of even one. The victim of a gunshot wound or severe auto accident can be completely "bled out" by the time emergency services arrive and have no pulse or blood pressure. It takes massive transfusions to resuscitate and stabilize them and then further transfusions to operate on them to repair the damage. It is not terribly unusual for a trauma victim to have their entire blood volume replaced several times over.

    Case in point: There was a women in my city a few years ago who ignored the pain of an ectopic pregnancy and put off going to the doctor. One of her fallopian tubes burst and she collapsed in her front yard. She was clinically dead when help arrived. Over the course of resuscitation and emergency surgery she needed 42 units of blood, which was several times her entire blood volume. (This example was given to me by a spokesperson for United Blood Services)

    In the context of trauma, the Elder's comments amount to a claim that it is impossible to bleed to death, which is absolutely ludicrous and ignorant.

  • brotherdan
    - just repeating the WTS official line about his matter.

    That's exactly it. The blood videos that came out a few years back make that claim. It's actually a doctor that syas it. He also says that it's only the unskilled doctors that feel like they have to give blood transfusions. Skilled doctors don't allow much blood loss.

    Even at the time the comments struck me as incredibly irresponsible. I know he is a bloodless surgery doctor that is trying to push his agenda. But to give untrue and misleading statements like that is so wrong.


    Do you have Questions about Blood Transfusions?

    Get an Expert Medical Opinion..

    From a JW Elder/Janitor..

    ...................... ...OUTLAW

  • TD

    I know what you're talking about Dan,

    It's the interview with Dr. Aryeh Shander in the video, No Blood –Medicine Meets the Challenge. Dr. Shander is sound-bited into saying things he doesn't actually agree with in his professional life.

    For example, Dr. Shander states:

    "To say that one has died because of refusal of blood is a very general, misleading statement."

    The narrator then asks,

    "Why then does blood transfusion remain the standard treatment for serious blood loss?"

    This presentation virtually guarantees that the average person will come away with the understanding that transfusion is never medically necessary under any circumstance.

    However Dr. Shander was drawing a distinction between primary and contributory causes of death. He stated: "People die because of either a medical disease or a consequence of trauma or surgery where there’s been complications." These are primary causes of death. For example, if we want to be technical, a patient who has bled to the point where their heart stops has died from cardiac arrest, not from refusal of blood. That doesn't mean that blood was not necessary.

    Although he recommends extreme caution in administering blood, Dr. Shander has never claimed that transfusion is not at times medically necessary. The most recent article he has authored on the subject states:

    "Although blood transfusion can be a life-saving treatment for acute blood loss or severe symptomatic anemia, the many potential associated harms and supply limitations have been well documented and therefore, its use in many nonacute hematologic states (e.g. mild-to-moderate anemia) is strongly debated." (Shander A. Blood Conservation Strategies Johns Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine 2008; 8:363)

    For non-Witness patients, he advocates a policy of "Blood management." He defines blood management as: "The appropriate use of blood and blood components with a goal of minimizing their use." (Goodnough L. Shander A. Blood Management Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:695)

    He states: "Anesthesiologists administer approximately 70% of all blood transfusions that are given in hospitals, and I’m learning to rely on less – with better results – every day." One of his stated reasons for bloodless surgery is that blood banks are overtaxed and the blood supply should be conserved for true emergencies and one of his professional affiliations is in fact with the American Association of Blood Banks. But you would never know any of that from watching the video.

Share this