Infant has "bloodless" surgery

by Dogpatch 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    Infant has "bloodless" surgery

    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Andrew Bridges

    Feb. 22, 2001 | LOS ANGELES (AP) --

    The 7-month-old son of Jehovah's Witnesses received part of his grandmother's liver in one of the first "bloodless" surgeries of its kind performed on an infant, doctors said.

    The family's religion opposes blood transfusions, which are typical in pediatric liver operations.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Print story

    E-mail story

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of using the usual two to three units of transfused blood during the infant's surgery, doctors used drugs to stimulate his production of red blood cells, and the blood from his incisions was recycled.

    Similar techniques have been used for heart surgery for years on Jehovah's Witnesses, who say the Bible prohibits them from accepting transfusions of whole blood or blood products.

    The "bloodless" operation performed Feb. 7 on Aiden Michael Rush's liver was so successful, it could become routine, doctors said Wednesday.

    "We made special arrangements in this case because of this family's religious beliefs, but from now on, we'll do this on every child to reduce our use of blood products," said Dr. Yuri Genyk, a member of the team that performed the surgery at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.

    Twenty adults are now being evaluated for the "bloodless" liver procedure at USC University Hospital, said Dr. Nicolas Jabbour, a member of that hospital's transplant team. The hospital has performed the operation on four adult Jehovah's Witnesses since 1999.

    That history drew the Rush family to Los Angeles from their home in Tipton, Iowa.

    "I had people tell me flat out I wouldn't find anybody who would do this surgery," said Heather Rush, 26, Aiden's mother. "But I wasn't going to give up until I found someone to help us."

    Aiden was born with biliary atresia, a condition where the bile duct is obstructed. He had surgery to connect his bile duct to his intestine but developed end-stage liver disease. Without a transplant, the disease likely would have been fatal.

    In the surgery at Childrens Hospital, Aiden received 20 percent of his grandmother Vicky Rush's liver, which should grow back in six to eight weeks.

    In the two weeks since the surgery, the infant's distended stomach has returned to normal size and the bronze-yellowish cast of his skin has begun to disappear, Heather Rush said.

    "Now he's just like a normal baby: He smiles, he plays with toys," she said. "It's the first time I have ever heard him laugh out loud."

    In a separate case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that people who reject blood transfusions on religious grounds can't be forced to have the treatment even if it could save their lives.

    The case involved Maria Duran, 34, a Jehovah's Witness who died in 1999 after two failed liver transplants. The court said a lower court was wrong to appoint her husband as emergency guardian for the limited purpose of approving a blood transfusion.

    "It is a difficult thing to decline potentially lifesaving treatment for a loved one, rendered mute by her condition, on the basis of her devotion to religious beliefs," the ruling said. "Nevertheless, absent evidence of overarching state interests, the patient's clear and unequivocal wishes should generally be respected."

    The case has been filed by a health guardian appointed by Duran with the sole duty of preventing a blood transfusion in case she became incapacitated.

  • LDH
    LDH

    OK, so let me get this right.

    Ms. Duran appointed a 'health guardian'. Her husband apparently wanted her to have a blood transfusion. So she appointed a 'health guardian' instead of allowing her husband to be her life partner, she chose someone else, perhaps an elder?!?!?

    I thought husband and wife were supposed to stick together; and that each is responsible for the other's welfare. I thought my husband was my health guardian!

  • happytobefree
    happytobefree

    I think the success of the bloodless surgery is great. Even though, I believe taking blood is ok, and would if my life was threatened. But, if I had an option not to, it would be wonderful, because there is a risk in taking blood (even though small).

    But, recycling the blood isn't that the same thing as storing your own blood for future surgery? So if the use of blood was a religious issue, the parents still went against what God's Mouthpiece teaches. Am I right in this observation (because I really have never given a rat's arse what the JW teaching were on blood, so I don't know what is and what is not allowed).

    Happy to be Free (Me)

  • conflicted
    conflicted

    I thought that once the blood left the body it was "to be poured upon the ground" - no storage - no transfusion - no recycling? Am I wrong or does it sound like WTS is looking the other way in preparation for another shift of policy, er "new light".

  • Xandit
    Xandit

    You guys are out of touch. The use of recycled blood has been acceptable for years. Using a little sophistry, it's considered an extension of the circulatory system. )

  • Sassenach
    Sassenach

    Xandit, is that the same as blood salvaging? I saw an article online about that not long ago. I'll see if I can find it again.

  • LDH
    LDH

    So Xandit,you're saying, salvaging blood (recycling blood)during the operation has been acceptable for years?

    Hmmmm I wonder what it was before it was *acceptable.* There was a shift in policy with the introduction of the auto-salvage machine.

    But Jehovah's policy doesn't change. Does it?

    Of course not. Only man's interpretaion has changed.

  • Sassenach
    Sassenach

    Hi Lisa, I can't find the article on blood salvaging. My impression was that once the technology was developed the practice was acceptable. The reasoning was similar to the one for dialysis, that the blood does not actually leave the circulatory system--just rerouted through tubes and machinery and then back into the body.

  • LDH
    LDH

    Sass,

    Yeah, thanks, I know. I was just making a point.

  • Sassenach
    Sassenach

    doh, sorry Lisa. I thought I felt something whooshing by over my head

    Edited by - Sassenach on 22 February 2001 15:10:21

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit