Bloodless Medicine to be used in the US Army

by Dagney 18 Replies latest jw friends

  • hamsterbait


    In battle scenarios where there is no blood bank with blood on tap, the doctors have to cope.

    Fewer blood donors = crisis in sugery. They aint doin it cause they loves jehoobie!!


  • TD

    The U.S. military has not decided to 'abstain from blood' and anybody who would say this is an ignorant fool.

    First, let's define exactly what 'bloodless medicine' and 'blood management' are. Dr. Aryeh Shander, who as in individual is more directly responsible for Englewood's bloodless program than anybody else defined it thus:

    “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)

    Shander 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.” (From Englewood's website)

    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. Shander is not categorically opposed to transfusion. He simply believes it should be used less and advocates a very high transfusion threshold. Minimizing the use of blood and blood products is an altogether different thing than abstaining.

    That the U.S. military would desire to raise the transfusion threshold is no surprise. It can't be denied that 'bloodless' surgical techniques are superior. Transfusion should be avoided if at all possible and nobody denies this.

    At the same time though this is war we're talking about and soldiers are horribly injured by bullets, by mortars and by mines. There has actually been an upsurge in the use of whole blood by the U.S. military to counteract catastrophic exsanguination. The average JW may not know this, but then the average JW is a fool. To claim that transfusion is never needed in a military theater of operation is to claim in effect that it's impossible to bleed to death. --Which is ridiculous.

  • GLTirebiter

    Hamsterbait said it! The army has a limited supply of blood in combat zones, and they use it only if they need to. It's triage in action: "You're not so bad off, you don't need a transfusion!" The crucial difference: the Army is acting rationally by basing blood use on medical considerations; the WT is acting irrationally by denying blood based on organization policy.

  • jwfacts

    Bloodless options have been a goal of medicine for over a hundred years, well before JWs stopped using blood. If there is an option that involves a viable alternative that is cost effective of course it will be used. It has nothing to do with JW doctrine, other than they were willing to be experimented on for illogical ideologies. It is a shame JWs will spin it as vindication for themselves.

  • jwfacts

    I have thought for a few years that the only reason the Watchtower still prevents blood transfusions is that they knew viable alternatives were getting closer. If there was no hope on the horizon for blood transfusions to be replaced by bloodless alternatives I am sure blood transfusions would be allowed by now.

  • AllTimeJeff

    The whole premise of "bloodless medicine" is flawed. What is the oppositve? Bloodful medicine?

    Sorry for my play on words, but think about it. Even Jesus said that "those in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do."

    Sick people need medicine. No one just wants to indiscriminatly transfuse blood. All doctors for the most part have acted with the best knowledge they had through the centuries.

    No doubt, in 50 years, doctors will look back on 2011 and wonder how the hell we made it! That is a cool prospect.

    What JW's don't understand (and are prevented from understanding by the leadership) is that any kind of medicine, blood or otherwise, is administered after carefully thought out analysis of each individual situation.

    Ideally, no one would need medicine or a transfusion. It is only given when things are going wrong that it is given.

    So if doctors are trying to eliminate blood medicine, or minimize it, it isn't to placate JW's or to appease the almight YHWH. Doctors seek to limit or eliminate blood medicine only to help a person, not to sacrifice you to some invisible, non existent god.

    Blood IS precious, esp as medicine. And it is expensive. So why use it needlessly if other options exist?

  • jarhume
  • talesin

    Good point, Violia! Agreed. Decades ago, one of my mother's doctors told her "we no longer use blood unless it's necessary". They just don't transfuse you so you look 'in the pink' .... that was left far behind in the 60s. Medicine now realizes that blood is an organ, and should be dealt with as such.

    But when you need a transfusion, you need it! When I was hemmoraging (sp?), and we were waiting for the surgeon,,, they hung on, waiting, to make sure I only got a transfusion if absolutely necessary.

    And Motrin,,, really? That is a powerful NSAID, and lots of side effects. *shaking head in disgust* So that's how the troops are being cared for. *sigh*

    ATJ - true dat!


  • undercover

    Received today in an email...with lots of "Praise Jah's!!!"

    Since when do dubbies praise God for what the US military does?

    Interesting that the JW's use the "safety" argument when discussing the benefits of bloodless was never the reason for the JW blood stance, it was rather based on obeying God's law on the sanctity of blood. I guess you can take an unrelated bit of information and "Bend it like Beckham" to make your point!

    Where's the "like" button? I hate it when a JW tries to point out how doctors are learning better ways than blood transfusions. It's not about safety or finding better ways. For JWs, the one and only reason is because of how they intrepret scripture. Nothing else matters. No other argument means anything.

    When there's massive blood loss and doctors say "blood transfusion", dubs go, "NO! it's against god's law". But when the medical field makes advancement in bloodless surgery, these same dubs will come to the conclusion that Jehovah is somehow blessing their no blood stand.

Share this