Watchtower actually right about something!

by Nambo 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Nambo

    Copied from an article today in "The Republic" of Indiana which confirms what the org had written in their Blood Booklet.

    Posted purely for your interest.

    Doctors find patients do better without blood transfusions

    • ROB WENNEMER - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    • August 29, 2012 - 7:50 am EDT
    • A A A Share/Save/Bookmark

    A recent study suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses are on to something. — In the Archives of Internal Medicine, doctors from the Cleveland Clinic reported last month that Witnesses who underwent cardiac surgery without a blood transfusion fared better than non-Witnesses in terms of infection and complication rates, length of hospital stays and short- and long-term survival.

    Although the study, which compared 322 patients of each group, focused only on cardiac surgery, many doctors report similar trends in orthopedic, gynecological and neurosurgery.

    In 1962, Dr. Denton Cooley pioneered so-called bloodless open-heart surgery on Jehovah's Witness patients in Texas. Since then, the practice has evolved to the point that many surgeons, regardless of a patient's religious beliefs, try to minimize the loss of blood each time they stand over the operating table.

    "We've taken what we have learned in the management of the Jehovah's Witnesses and are applying it to the general medical population as a whole," said Jan Seski, medical director of Allegheny General Hospital's Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery. "Blood in and of itself may be lifesaving. If you have a trauma patient that comes in after a motorcycle accident and they are bleeding to death, you need to use transfusions. But if you can avoid it, in some situations you will get a better outcome."

    Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons but many also fear the possibility of contracting blood-borne illnesses such as hepatitis or HIV/AIDS through transfusions.

    There is not one specific methodology used when performing bloodless surgery. Hospitals take a "whole programmatic approach," Seski said, and they must adapt to the needs of the patient. Nonetheless, certain procedures are used to increase blood counts and to prevent blood loss before, during and after surgery.

    Before surgery, doctors attempt to normalize the patient's blood count, as many are anemic. Patients who are anemic do not have enough healthy red blood cells, which are responsible for providing oxygen to body tissues.

    Blood counts can be raised 1 gram per week by providing the patient with iron and synthetic growth hormones such as erythropoietin, which stimulate the bone marrow to produce red blood cells. The increased speed with which doctors can now boost blood counts to a safe level for surgery is especially significant, as patients with a malignancy are far better off when operated on sooner rather than later.

    A hemodilution technique pioneered by Seski and others in 1977 at M.D. Anderson cancer center is one of a number of strategies used to save blood during surgery. It is a closed loop system that separates a patient's blood into red blood cells and clear plasma. The machine returns the plasma and a saline solution to the patient's body during surgery to equalize blood volume. The red blood cells are kept in the machine, however, and returned to the body at the end of surgery.

    The postoperative care of a patient is also important, as blood can continue to be lost after a surgery is complete. Blood samples, for instance, can remove up to a pint per week. To minimize the loss, doctors now use pediatric tubes, drawing smaller amounts of blood while still gaining the necessary data from testing.

    Smaller incisions have also reduced the amount of blood lost during surgery.

    "We use a laparoscopic approach, and that allows us to really get folks up sooner out of bed because they are not having pain from a big incision," said Dr. James T. McCormick, who specializes in colorectal surgery. "If you keep the wound size small, then obviously there is less opportunity for there to be an infection."

    (Rob Wennemer is a former intern at the Post-Gazette.)

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    And so Jehovah's Witnesses serve their purpose in the evolution of humankind. . . It's about time they disappear into the mists of time. . .

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    actually they are not right. as the article says: "Blood in and of itself may be lifesaving. If you have a trauma patient that comes in after a motorcycle accident and they are bleeding to death, you need to use transfusions. But if you can avoid it, in some situations you will get a better outcome."

    the watchtower however wants you to die if you have an accident or if you live in some place in the world where medical help is not as well prepared for bloodless surgeries.

  • slimboyfat

    Of course it's better to go without blood if you can possibly avoid it ... unless you are going to bleed to death otherwise. Duh.

  • james_woods
    the watchtower however wants you to die if you have an accident or if you live in some place in the world where medical help is not as well prepared for bloodless surgeries.

    Or if you have lukemia and need a bone marrow transplant, or your baby is born with a newborn condition that requires it, and so on...

    Anyway - all of this is pointless in the JW blood debate.

    These idiots are justifying deliberate death through refusing blood transfusion by a weird religious interpretation taken from something written centuries before blood tranfusion was even considered or invented.

  • Juan Viejo2
    Juan Viejo2

    After I had my open heart surgery in 2002, I asked my doctor if he'd had to use blood transfusions. This was heart artery bypass surgery. You know what pulses through those veins.

    His answer was that they had several pints of blood at the ready in case of emergency, but they did not actually need to transfuse me. I slept through the whole thing, but as he explained they slowed everything down while I was under the knife (no idea how they did that) and used a heart bypass machine to keep my brain alive. Most of the time during the operation was used for removing a vein in my leg (open up, snip-snip, cauterize the ends, sew me back up) and cracking my chest (blood loss was minimized by avoiding arteries and cauterizing veins). Once the heart was available, only small incisions were made to patch the new veins around the blockages. My case was complicated because they had to take a large chuck out of an artery feeding my left shoulder and arm in order to get a larger piece for a blockage in one of the feed arteries.

    In spite of all of that, my doctor said I loss less than two pints of blood, an amount that the body can replace in just a few hours. So even though blood was available, none was used. I was no longer a JW, so I had no qualms at all about taking blood, but the doctor obviously felt that was not a necessity even in my rather complicated case.

    I've had three other surgeries, two abdominal. I both cases the doctors did not need or even consider the use of blood.

    I think doctors see blood as necessary only in cases of severe blood loss like gunshots, car accidents and decapitations. The important thing is that knowing that doctors do not automatically start giving blood transfusions everytime someone goes under the knife is good to know (as my doctor said, "That is the lazy way to do surgery..."). But when they do feel they need to use that option, it is definitely a life/death situation.


  • wallsofjericho

    Although I am still certain JW's everywhere will point to this as proof of how smaterer the WTS is than dr's the following points remain true:

    1 - JW belief has NOTHING to do with recovery rates. Blood is "bad" because the WTS says it is

    2 - if your a JW in a motorcycle accident and your bleeding out your still dead.

  • james_woods

    All that this proves is that doctors have learned to be careful and reasonable about the choice to use blood.

    The Watchtower is STILL WRONG on the issue: Here is why -

    The Watchtower did not take this stand to save lives, or to improve medical procedure.

    They took their stand because of a strange religious interpretation of ancient writings (which obviously had nothing to do with blood transfusions).

    They took their stand quite obviously without any regard for the life of the person refusing the blood transfusion.

    It is manslaughter by religious decree.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    As pointed out, JWs could care less about medical outcomes: they refuse blood on purely religious grounds. Any consequences, whether positive or negative, take a back-seat.

    They also claim to be the defenders of all citizens constitutional rights, when again, the goal is only to defend their own preaching work. So any consequences, whether positive or negative, take a back-seat.

    Hence it's good to remember that even a blind mouse finds the cheese sometimes....

  • Juan Viejo2
    Juan Viejo2

    They took the blood stand because the leaders needed another way to set JWs apart from other "christian" religions. Fred Franz just carried on Clayton J. Woodruff's crazy medical beliefs and came up with the blood thing. They've been locked to it ever since.

    Many here will not know that in the early 1950s - during the worst of the polio epidemics - Drs. Salk and Sabin were working independently on a polio vaccine. Polio was so bad at the time that almost every school classroom had at least one student who had it, was crippled by it, or caught it during those years. One kid with polio could decimate an elementary school if not isolated immediately.

    Around 1952-54 when Salk finally came out with his polio vaccine, the number of cases dropped immediately. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, most often refused to let their kids take the vaccine. Their avoidance of vaccines was leftover from the Golden Age and Consolation magazine days when Woodruff regularly published articles claiming that vaccines were poisonous - and actually caused diseases rather than preventing them.

    I'm not sure if the Awake! ever published an article saying not to take the polio vaccine, but the word was out and none of the Witness families I knew would allow their kids to take the vaccine. I finally took the Sabin vaccine (on a sugar cube) at a free clinic in 1962, after I was old enough to make my own decisions. I don't know if my younger brother and sister ever took the vaccine.

    Within ten years, polio became almost unknown in industrialized countries. My kids could not enter school unless they had been given the vaccine.

    Another example of the Watchtower being on the wrong side of an issue. Jehovah's spirit needs to catch up on scientific facts before it directs the governing body and its writing committee.


Share this