What would be the best decision if we took out all the religion out of the blood issue?

by ILoveTTATT 10 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  ILoveTTATT

  I am wondering this:

  What surgeries/procedures/situations have been shown to be life-or-death decisions without blood?

  I only know, currently, of trauma (car accident, gunshot wound, etc)...

  What would be treatable exclusively with "no blood fractions" and with "no procedures using my blood"?

  If I had never been a JW and I asked a doctor, can I/should I have a policy of refusing blood as much as possible, opting for any bloodless alternative if available, and using blood only as a last-case resort? Would this expose me to higher risks?

  I.E.

  Risk of dying while not taking blood after having a car accident: 35%

  Risk of dying from illnesses such as HIV, HepC, HepB, TRALI, acute immune hemolytic reaction, etc, all added up: possibly less than 1%

  Can someone make a list of different scenarios, like the one above?
• 

  PaintedToeNail

  Ilove-Years ago I worked at a hospital as a go-fer. I would have to go to the lab to pick up blood for the patients. This required cross checking the name on the bag and so forth. The blood bags were labelled "bio-hazard", which was rather alarming. It wasn't all that common to have to pick blood up. The doctors didn't order it lightly, it wasn't like they were ordering up Tylenol, they ordered it up knowing that it was a source of contamination for their patient, but after considering their other options, they did order it when it was their best defense for what was going on with that particular patient.

  I would personally never lightly take a blood transfusion, but then most doctors would never lightly order up a blood transfusion either.
• 

  Narcissistic Supply

  Blood kind of helps if your bleeding out on the table. Errrr Bleeding out on the pavement. Errrr.... after about 24 hours of surgery. Ahh......Blood kind of helps you survive......You can take blood out of a turnip.....but you can't tell a JW anything....
• 

  Scully

  Doctors nowadays don't recommend blood transfusions unless there is a specific need for it.

  For example, if you have a very low hemoglobin level (70 mg/L or less) they would recommend it, especially if you are symptomatic. There are alternatives, of course, such as boosting your iron intake with supplements or diet.

  Fractions are more of an individual thing. For instance if you are a pregnant female with Rh negative blood, they usually recommend that you have an injection of RhoGam in the third trimester and within 72 hours of delivery, to protect the baby and future pregnancies from exposure to antibodies against Rh positive blood.

  Babies who are exposed to these antibodies can have varying degrees of erythroblastosis foetalis, which causes severe jaundice, and used to require exchange transfusions. Now high intensity ultra violet lights are used to treat jaundice, and exchange transfusions are only done on a very rare occasion.

  People who require clotting factors (hemophilia, von Willebrand's disease) are allowed to take these fractions. Incidentally Factor XIII was one of the first blood fractions permitted by the WTS in the treatment of hemophilia as early as 1974 (w 6/1, QFR). The irony here is that while the WTS forbids transfusions that come from one donor per unit and compare it to fornication/adultery, they do permit fractions that are manufactured using "large pools of donor blood" - would that be equivalent to an orgy if you extend the WTS's beloved sexual immorality comparison?

  There are lots of blood fractions - anti tetanus toxoid vaccine, anti venoms for snake or spider bites (separate preparations for each type of venomous snake/spider).

  Your decision whether to accept the treatment or not would likely depend on the severity of the outcome if you chose to not accept treatment. For example, will you or someone you love die or be permanently maimed if you don't? You aren't required to martyr yourself anymore, and you aren't required to sacrifice your spouse or children anymore. Keep that in mind when making your decisions, and don't let some bullying publishing company coerce you into making a decision that will cause regret to yourself or to loved ones.
• 

  Narcissistic Supply

  If you ever got bit by a misquito in a crowded room you had a blood transfusion. Sorry.

  
• 

  ILoveTTATT

  Paintedtoenail: This is more the answer that I am looking for!! So, doctors would only transfuse if they knew the risks of transfusing were less than the risks of NOT transfusing, right?

  It would be interesting if someone made a short guide on various procedures and their evolution to the point of not having blood transfusions. I know that in certain procedures, the added risk of bloodless is much much higher than the risk of using blood. In other procedures, bloodless would be the gold standard. I would want unbiased information that would show the pros/cons of the specific procedure.

  I would like to create a "medical directive" for myself based on the best practices in the medical profession, and not based on any religious beliefs. I think I have to do one to go above my personal living will... unfortunately I have to make a new one that's non-JW...
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Removing religion from a decision, is that even possible? Even a die hard atheist considers religion in every decision they make. It's like saying you decided not to choose. You still made a choice. I know people make bad decisions based on religious beliefs every day. I wonder how many non-religious people have made equally bad decisions based on their contempt for religion, thereby allowing religion to influence their decision?

  As far as any medical procedure is concerned, there are no trivial decisions. My personal feeling is that having a blood transfusion is a last resort. If there is an alternative that is safer, I would rather have that. Never having to use blood would be the best.
• 

  adamah

  Ilove-Years ago I worked at a hospital as a go-fer. I would have to go to the lab to pick up blood for the patients. This required cross checking the name on the bag and so forth. The blood bags were labelled "bio-hazard", which was rather alarming. It wasn't all that common to have to pick blood up.

  No cause for great alarm: ALL biological matter obtained from another human (urine, feces, blood, saliva, tears, hair, dandruff, etc) is considered as potentially-dangerous to others since it may serve as a vehicle for transmitting infectious agents, and requires special handling AS IF the person had an infectious disease: hence the designation of "bio-hazard". In the case of blood, it needs to be tested for the presence of pathogens (critters, eg virus that causes AIDs, etc) before use.

  What surgeries/procedures/situations have been shown to be life-or-death decisions without blood?

  I only know, currently, of trauma (car accident, gunshot wound, etc)...

  What would be treatable exclusively with "no blood fractions" and with "no procedures using my blood"?

  I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dry as you'd wish it to be, since the answer is highly dependent on the skill of the surgeon, the resources at their disposal, different outcomes amongst providers, etc. That's exactly WHY some surgeons specialize in bloodless surgery, even creating centers, eg:

  http://www.sharp.com/sem/bloodless.cfm

  Paintedtoenail: This is more the answer that I am looking for!! So, doctors would only transfuse if they knew the risks of transfusing were less than the risks of NOT transfusing, right?

  Yeah, ALL medical decisions are based on risks vs benefits, and communicating that to the patient: that's the doctine of informed consent, since ultimately the patient has to make the decision of what care they wish to receive (it's their own body, and can refuse treatment EVEN IF the doctor doesn't agree with their decision HAS to respect and follow it).

  Adam
• 

  Nathan Natas

  In 2008 I had open-heart surgery to repair a prolapsed mitral valve. I had prepared for the surgery by having a couple units of my own blood stored for an autologous transfusion, should any transfusion be neccessarry. NO blood at all was used for this surgery.

  A few months after this I needed to have a meningioma removed from inside my skull. This was a sudden need with no time to prepare. Again, NO blood was needed during the surgery, which required peeling part of my scalp down to expose my skull, drilling a hole about 3/4 inch in diameter through my skull and cutting away the meningioma that was sitting on my brain like a frog on a log.

  The primary surgical need of blood today is to offset hypovolemic shock, which is extreme blood loss as a result of an accident most of the time.

  I'm not an expert on blood fractions, but my guess would be that they would be used most often to assist with the treatment of hereditary blood deficiencies or some kinds of poisons.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  EX-cellent point, Narcissistic Supply! A femto-transfusion perhaps, but a transfusion none-the-less!

  WHY oh WHY did Jehovah make them that way?!?