by Earnest 33 Replies latest watchtower medical
I had a blood transfusion about 8 yrs ago and my heart is super healthy. I regularly get my cholesterol and bp checked. There are risks to everything in life. It doesn't mean we should be paranoid about it. The benefits in the long run outweigh the risks!
It's like saying I'm not going to drive today because there's a chance I may get into a car accident and die. We can't live life with that sort of mentality.
MsD, if your transfusion was not related to treating a heart attack, this story does not apply.
I had a blood transfusion 2 1/2 months ago. Nothing to do with heart attack other than the fact that I had lost so much blood my heart was working so hard I was in danger of having one.
Earnest, I am studying to be a cardiovascular technologist, with a specialty in Invasive Cardiology. In other words, we clear a clogged coronary artery that is causing the heart attack.
I have to say that I have never heard of someone needing a blood transfusion from a Myocardial Infarction. In fact, Nitroglycerin is given to the patient to dialate their blood vessels and lower their blood pressure.
In the end, the issue of accepting blood is based on whether or not a person wants to continue to live in the event of a severe trauma or condition that would otherwise prove to be fatal. The benefit far outweighs the risk. Just like being exposed to an X-ray. X-ray is not healthy and there is no such thing as a healthy dose of X-ray radiation. Without it, however, we could not diagnose the problem of an individual without cutting them open which is far riskier.
PTV81
would you please provide some support for your statement that this is "some stupid biased bit of information".
If this bit of info were to used to support the WTS's own blood doctrine, its really relevant as such.
I was simply pointing the fact that whenever a blood transfusion fails or has questionable use in medical practice the WTS. uses that bit of information
to uphold their doctrine, totally dismissing all others informative positive information concerning the benefits of blood transfusions.
Has the WTS. ever mentioned that millions of lives have been saved by the use of blood transfusions ?
Thanks for that clarity PTV81.
The reason for my "so what" comment was that we all know blood transfusions are not without risk - so what?
Jumping out your bedroom window is risky, but if there is a fire and you are out of options.....
Piercingtheveil81 : I have to say that I have never heard of someone needing a blood transfusion from a Myocardial Infarction.
I am not at all qualified in the medical field and have no reason to doubt your comment above. However, the authors of the study (Saurav Chatterjee, MD; Jørn Wetterslev, MD, PhD; Abhishek Sharma, MD; Edgar Lichstein, MD; Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS) are qualified and these are the conclusions they reach.
I haven't identified the studies on which their conclusions were based, and as you are involved in the field you might find it of interest to contact Dr Chatterjee and read them yourself. However, I do note that the article says "studies of blood transfusion strategy in anemia associated with myocardial infarction were abstracted..." (my italics) and perhaps it is particularly in cases of anemia associated with myocardial infarction that blood is regularly used.
I think this particular BT issue in itself has little relevance toward the not partaking of BTs but I suppose that might be too balanced and rational
for a typical assuming JWS .
The bottom line, lives are being lost because of some old
men interpretation of the scriptures.
Some interesting fact about blood.
From America,s Blood centers.
4.5 million Americans will need blood transfusion each year.
43000 pints amount of donated blood used each day in the
U.S. and Canada.
Someone needs blood every two seconds.
Only 37% of the U.S. populations is eligible to donate blood,
less than 10% do annually.
One pint of blood can save up to three lives.
There are 51 other facts about blood that the WT conveniently
leave out.
Notice, one pint of blood can save up to three lives.
But Jehovah I donated a pint of blood each years, saving a lot
of folks. Jehovah, it doesn,t matter, they were slated to die.
When I was in university took a course in Medical Ethics and I wrote a paper about JWs and their refusal to take blood transfusions. At the time the JW beliefs were still firmly planted in me. So I went to the medical library of McGill University and did some research.
And I wrote a paper that supported the JW stance on blood from a purely medical standpint. My prof was amazed. I had found dozens of articles from reputable journals about the dangers of blood. My prof insisted and scribbled all over the front of my paper that I should get it published. I never pursued it.
Later on when I no longer beleived what the JWs teach, I realiazed I had made a terrible mistake when I wrote that paper. I had only looked for one side of the argument. I only cited articles that supported the JWs. I included nothing that contradicted their belief. I am surprised that my prof didn't catch that. It is very poor research and I should not have gotten an A+ for the paper.
It is very easy to research anything and only use what supports your beliefs. The WTS does it all the time when they publish any of their literature.
I am ashamed I ever wrote it. There was nothing ethical in what I wrote.
I'm not a doctor, but I often pretend to be one on the Internet...
Sounds like the article is talking about " A practice of routine or liberal blood transfusion in myocardial infarction " when the patient becomes anemic as a result. If these are cases where doctors pump in blood rather than repair the cause of anemia or bleeding, you can't expect the patient to have a great outcome.
