Bloodless Surgery-YOU DIE!

by messenger 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  messenger

  . http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4139986%255E3102,00.html

  Heart surgery deaths 'outed'
  Hedley Thomas and Nathan Scholz
  16apr02

  A GOLD Coast private hospital outed itself yesterday for having had Queensland's highest fatality rate among heart surgery patients.

  But Allamanda Private Hospital chief executive Libby Shakespeare said a Queensland Health study released to all hospitals two months ago was "misleading and seriously skewed".

  The confidential study showed the risk-adjusted rate for benchmark heart surgery procedure at the Allamanda was 3½ times the state average for public hospitals and twice the rate for private hospitals.

  There were four deaths among 70 patients who had cardiac surgery in the year under review, before the Allamanda was sold by Mayne Health to the Health Corporation of Australia.

  Ms Shakespeare said the fatality rate of 6 per cent was misleading because the hospital's cardiac surgeons had mostly operated on "very hard, very high-risk patients", including a Jehovah's Witness who refused blood products and a 91-year-old man.

  "The report by Queensland Health itself admits there were insufficient cases for analysis," she said.

  "We did not have many low-risk patients and we did not have a large volume over all, so the figures are misleading.

  "In this financial year we have so far had one death in 89 patients.

  "We also have full peer review for the doctors to discuss deaths and that has happened since the cardiac unit opened in February, 1999."

  Queensland Health and Mater Townsville Hospital have scrambled to deflect criticism of mortality rates since Channel 9's Sunday program highlighted an alarming number of deaths.

  Queensland Health's chief medical officer, Bryan Campbell, last night said the raw mortality figures "are an indicator only".

  "They show us that there may be something wrong – not that there is something wrong," he said.

  Mater Townsville board chairman Bob Jones said people expected a transparent investigation by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The Mater Townsville's death rate for cardiac valve patients was four times the state average, but Mr Jones said he was not allowed to give the figures for individual surgeons.

  Courier-Mail
• 

  QUEENIE

  but when U die U go to met your maker (heaven) a better place they say so what is so bad about that !! JUST a question !!!
• 

  messenger

  Of course if you really really really want to die when why should we stop you? I am inclined to agree with the comments below.

  . http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?f=/stories/20020413/628631.html

  Judging the judge
  Justice Adele Kent's decision in the case of the Calgary Jehovah's Witness teenager probably appeals to many Canadians, myself included, who do not concur with the religious beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness, however, it is clearly in conflict with other decisions regarding teenagers' right of free choice in the province of Alberta (Jehovah's Teen Ordered to Take Transfusions, April 11).

  A 16-year old girl may leave home if she disputes her parents guidelines; she may choose to have sexual relations, obtain contraceptives and have an abortion without the consent of her parents. She may leave school. All of these life-determining choices are within her control according to decisions made routinely in Family Court in the province.

  It occurs to me that the judge erred significantly in denying the right of an obviously devout, mature young person to make a life choice. Or have we begun to recognize that 16-year-olds aren't quite so ready to make those lifestyle choices?

  Regrettably, it seems more likely she discriminated against religious beliefs with which she does not concur.

  Brian Franks, Calgary.
• 

  Elsewhere

  QUEENIE, you sound like someone who truly believes and therefore will be willing to try my Shotgun Experiment™.

  [Ahem]

  Simply place the barrel of a loaded shotgun under your chin pointing to the back of your head and pull the trigger.

  VuWala! You are in PARADISE and all of your "is there an afterlife" questions are answered.

  NOTE: The use of the aforementioned “Shotgun Experiment™” requires payment of a Usage Fee before it is use.

  "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
  Believe in yourself, not mythology.
  <x ><
• 

  Scully

  Mr Franks does not at all allude to the legal and ethical concept of informed consent with respect to medical issues.

  Clearly, Jehovah's Witnesses, as individuals and as a group, do not demonstrate that they are truly informed as to the consequences of their decision to refuse blood transfusions. Their sole source of information is what the WTS chooses to tell them. They are not encouraged or permitted by WTS leadership to consult outside sources of information, which flies in the face of the informed consent concept. The fact is, the course of treatment that the girl was seeking - stem cell transplantation, which she basically parrotted as the treatment of preference for JWs by the WTS - had been ruled out as an appropriate treatment by the physicians. In fact, she had not made "her own decision", but the WTS had made it for her, and the judge realized that. Who is more qualified to determine appropriate treatment? The WTS, who put misleading and inaccurate information in their publications?? or a team of oncologists who have spent collectively many years in training and treating leukemia?? Who is better qualified to provide complete information regarding the risks and benefits of any treatment that is available??

  While it is true that a 16 year old can quit school, have sex, have an abortion, obtain contraception, get a job, emancipate themselves from their parents, etc., the WTS and the girl in question were not able to demonstrate that she has the capacity to make medical decisions of this magnitude to the judge's satisfaction. The judge was ruling "in the best interests of the child", which is part of her duty as a judge, not a specific bias against the WTS.

  Love, Scully

  
  
• 

  Scully

  Something else just occurred to me:

  Would you say that a devout, mature 16 year old Muslim has the right to make a life-determining choice to fly an airplane into the side of a building? or drive a vehicle into a building full of people and blow it up??

  When a 16 year old is threatening to kill themselves, do most of us say "Yeah well go ahead, it's your choice"?? Or is it in their best interests to intervene on their behalf?? Is someone who is suicidal competent to make their own decisions??

  Love, Scully

  
  
• 

  target

  I know several people who had bloodless surgery for heart related problems. Two of them suffered strokes right after the surgery. One died during surgery. One had suffered memory loss and other brain problems. It makes me wonder if bloodless surgery is as safe as the WTS would have you believe.

  Target
• 

  Scully

  Hi Target:

  I think you're probably right about bloodless surgery not being as safe as the WTS would have everyone believe.

  The thing is, bloodless medicine is a relatively new field, and there are not as many skilled surgeons who practice bloodless technique as there are traditionally trained surgeons. As with any new technology, there is a very big learning curve, and a huge psychological hurdle for traditionally trained doctors to overcome when it comes to tackling bloodless surgery. The big question for a lot of doctors is "What is my liability if things go wrong?" and the truth is that many doctors are not comfortable giving up a failsafe measure such as giving a patient blood when circumstances warrant; especially knowing the WTS's penchant for legal action when things run amuck.

  My much younger sister recently did an essay for school on the topic of bloodless medicine. She was very disappointed with her grade, and felt that the teacher was biased against JWs. When I read the paper, I said to her that the teacher wasn't as biased against JWs as her essay was against the use of blood, considering that practically all of her reference material came directly from the WTS. The whole point of her essay was to discuss the risks and benefits (pros and cons), yet she stuck to the WTS party-line and did not explore all the options.

  Of course, she wasn't too happy with my appraisal either, but I think she now understands the concept of "thorough discussion".

  Love, Scully