Doctors and surgeons say no to blood transfusions

by Mr Negative 65 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Backformore, you must have done your nursing education in a school that wasn't an osteopathic one. Most of the doctors and surgeons that I have discovered that work in bloodless medicine are trained in the school of osteopathy.

    Rebel, I understand that your story will be disturbing. I have read many disturbing things when researching bloodless surgery and the Watchtower Society's involvement in it. And I don't expect your story to be a pretty one. I will be reading your story as soon as I am able to.

  • backformore
    backformore

    Nope, no osteopathy here. Just plain old medicine at Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, and totally secular hospitals, all of which treated blood transfusions like the good things that they are. JW's and their anti blood beliefs were mentioned multiple times in lectures and each time it was "these people are nuts but you have to respect their views and treat aaccordingly."

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Just a bit more information to add to that of Mr. Earnshaw, the doctor who appeared on the front cover of the Awake magazine.

    His photo also appears connected to a bloodless surgery website.

    http://www.rumburak.friko.pl/ARTYKULY/zdrowie/krew/pionierzy.php

    It appears like the bloodless industry is as guilty as the Watchtower Society in misrepresentation.

  • prologos
    prologos

    How about the retired Dr. Boyd of MTL Royal Vic that appeared in the Wt Video?

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    I have not watched the Watchtower video. But I am familar with it - I found the DVD in a research hospital's library a few years back.

    But, I did encounter Dr. Boyd in this article from 1996: Jehovah's Witnesses leading education drive as hospitals adjust to No Blood requests.

    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp-archive/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-154/0557e.htm

    Charland is director of hospital information services for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, which represents more than 200 000 Jehovah's Witnesses. He and some of his colleagues were at Dalhousie to give a presentation, "Meeting the challenge of nonblood medical management." It is part of a larger effort to educate the medical community about the Jehovah's Witness position on blood and to promote "bloodless" medicine and surgery in Canada. In recent years, Charland and other Watch Tower representatives have visited more than 10 medical schools and 200 hospitals across the country.

    This was their third appearance at Dalhousie, where their presentation is now part of an undergraduate curriculum unit. Charland provided students with a brief overview of the medical interventions Jehovah's Witnesses will and won't accept, and then explained the biblical basis for their beliefs. He also discussed the ethical issues surrounding the doctor-patient relationship and the treatment of Jehovah's Witness children, and described how his organization -- through access to experienced specialists, hospital liaison committees, and online research -- can assist physicians in caring for church members.

    This was the Society's sales pitch at that seminar, which Dr. Boyd was present at:

    "Worldwide," he said, "there are some 100 bloodless medicine and surgery centres or programs offered in tertiary, regional and teaching hospitals." There are 52 of these hospitals in the United States alone, which assure patients that blood will never be used. As one ob/gyn resident remarks later in the session, "these centres must be inundated with people - everyone wants [to go] bloodless these days."

    That trend has not been lost on Charland and his colleagues, and they believe it's only a matter of time before bloodless medicine and surgery programs begin to emerge north of the border. "In Canada, we don't think it's a question of whether," Charland said. "It's a question of where first."

    Bloodless medicine and surgery programs "embrace all the specialties where blood transfusions could become a consideration," he says. According to Watch Tower literature, the programs include a coordinator, "a core team" of specialists willing to treat patients without allogeneic blood, hospital policies and procedures that facilitate patient care (such as patient forms and identification), and mobilization of appropriate treatment techniques and protocols.

    He adds that many hospitals have implemented various components, and four want to take a more "formalized or institutionalized approach." But it hasn't been an easy sell. Although blood usage has been decreasing here, Charland says Canada is "conspicuously absent" from the list of more than nine countries where bloodless programs have been set up in response to the needs of Jehovah's Witnesses and the wishes of other patients.

    He cites several reasons for the lukewarm reception. "At first glance there isn't an immediate financial incentive," he says. "Administrators and doctors in Canada have a difficult time visualizing how this saves the system money. . . . Many are working with the old myth that blood is free. They're not looking at the direct or indirect cost of blood-transfusion therapy."

    Dr. Pinkerton was not in support of bloodless surgery programs:

    "I don't see these programs serving any useful purpose," adds Dr. Peter Pinkerton, director of clinical pathology at Sunnybrook Health Science Centre in Toronto. "What we should be doing is trying to reduce transfusions across the board. This concept is the extreme end of a continuum. . . . You can carry this too far - you can start denying transfusions to people who should really receive them.

    "Obviously with Jehovah's Witnesses you have to respect their religious beliefs and refrain from giving any blood product, but [for] any other patient you give them as little as you can reasonably get away with [while] maintaining their clinical condition."

    But Dr. Boyd did support a bloodless program:

    On the other hand, suggests Dr. Mark Boyd, bloodless programs may have beneficial side effects. Boyd, head of gynecology at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, has performed more than 500 procedures on Jehovah's Witnesses and can recall only one of his non-Witness patients being transfused in the past 5 years. "I think it's positive," he says of bloodless programs. "Blood isn't a popular product, particularly in the last decade."

    Boyd recently completed a study of 100 hysterectomy patients who refused blood transfusions, and about 10% were not Jehovah's Witnesses. He says all did well and left the hospital at the same time as patients in the control group. Furthermore, of the 10 control patients who received blood, 8 transfusions "were unnecessary." Boyd, who is not a Jehovah's Witness, believes bloodless programs could make physicians more aware of preventing the need for transfusions in other patients. "The recognition that it's possible to do these things and to formalize them and have people try to make decisions before an actual crisis is important," he says. "There's nothing radical about the Jehovah's Witness approach, and everybody is capable of it . . . but it's not something that everyone is comfortable about doing."

    Note the 90 JW women that he used in a medical study.

    Nice having a willing group like that to try out radical approaches to health care.

    No wonder he supported the Watchtower - they were sending him subjects for his medical research.

    And, unrelated to the doctor opinion - later in the article there is this:

    In Chicago, however, Jan Castro Graziani recommends "a formal setup." Castro Graziani is coordinator of the Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Our Lady of Resurrection Medical Center, which was established in 1987 and is the oldest bloodless centre in the United States. She describes the Chicago centre as, essentially, a hospital department. When patients are admitted, they sign the appropriate forms and receive blue wristbands and blue coding on their chart. Then they are streamed into the normal patient population.

    Jan Castro Graziani is a Jehovah's Witness. Many, if not all, of the Bloodless Institutes established in the States were started and maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  • prologos
    prologos

    What was the medical establishment's involvement in the billion Dollar plus payout in the tainted blood scandal dating from the 90ies?

    how have doctor's attitudes to accept transfusions for themselves been affected by this?

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Prologos, it is important to understand that there has been, historically, a very distinct divide in the US between two different approaches to medicine - allopathic and osteopathic.

    There are 'allopathic' doctors and there are 'osteopathic' doctors.

    So, when you ask the question - " how have doctor's attitudes to accept transfusions for themselves been affected by tainted blood?", it is critical to understand that you will get different responses, depending upon which kindof doctor you are speaking of.

    The doctors who follow the allopathic approach to medicine, like the ones that Backformore trained with, and who do use and take blood transfusions - are the doctors who would traditionally be seen as those who founded and belong to the American Medical Association. These are the doctors that the Watchtower Society has had a long standing feud with - the AMA. These doctors understand the need to reduce the use of blood unnecessarily, but they do see blood transfusions as a life saving measure. These also are the doctors who have worked very diligently to make improvements and changes in the blood banking system such that it is now common knowlege that the risks of contracting a disease from transfused blood is very, very low. I doubt very much if an allopathically trained doctor would say no to a blood transfusion for themselves or their family. Reduction of blood transfusions - yes. Elimination of blood transfusions - absolutely not.

    It is mostly within the osteopathic field of medicine that you will find bloodlesss surgery methods promoted. It is the osteopathic doctors and surgeons who mostly support, endorse, and use bloodless surgery. And, it will more than likely be from an osteopathically trained doctor that you will hear some of the quotes that the Watchtower tosses around. Because, it is in this field, that of osteopathic medicine, that you will find Jehovah's Witness doctors and surgeons. And, of course, a JW doctor says that they won't take blood.

    The history of the clashes and fights and struggles between the American Medical Association and the osteopaths is long, bloody and not pretty. A person can see elements of that struggle played out in old Watchtower literature. It took much fighting before the osteopaths gained recognition as 'real' medical doctors and surgeons and there still exists controversy surrounding the credibilty and ability of ospteopathic doctors in some states. The ospteopaths do have accreditation now, but it was not always so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States

    If you read the article I linked to in my last post, about the Watchtower Society's promotion of bloodless medicine programs in Canada (Candian health care is far different than the US and the Canadian public health care system has made it very advantageous for experimental technology to advance...behind the scenes, so to speak...), you will notice that the promotion of bloodless surgery has been done on the basis of cost saving - not health reasons and not about tainted blood. The way the Society has been able to introduce bloodless programs into public health care systems, like Canada and Australia, is by making a case that bloodless programs save money. Hence, the birth of 'blood management'.

    When the Society's blood management teams 'sell' their programs to hospitals and to entire countries, they do not concern themselves very much with 'tainted blood' issues - that doesn't sell their bloodless programs - blood management does - the financial benefits of blood management is what drives the bloodless industry - not tainted blood.

    Tainted blood, really, is almost a moot point in the current medical use of blood transfusions in North America.

    I would be far more concerned about all that could go wrong with cell savers, etc. than I would be about contracting some disease from a blood transfusion. The cell saver and hemodilution procedures come with all the mechanical risks, and more, of an allogenic blood transfusion - the only thing that bloodless surgery procedures are able to afford protection from is disease - every other risk associated with blood transfusions exist with 'bloodless' methods.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    And some more to think about...

    Boyd, head of gynecology at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, has performed more than 500 procedures on Jehovah's Witnesses and can recall only one of his non-Witness patients being transfused in the past 5 years.

    500 procedures on JWs. Procedures - how many of these procedures involved hemodilution or cell savers?

    My guess - all of them. Contrary to what most JWs believe, bloodless surgery isn't just done with a 'slice open the patient, say some hail marys and hope for the best'. Jw surgeries are planned. Planned to the point of having 'pet' doctors who will operate on them with 'bloodless' methods.

    Now. Here is the very, very, critical point when it comes to risk taking - every single one of those JW 500 patients would have had a blood transfusion. Both cell saver and hemodilution procedures involve transfusing blood - the patient's own blood. Every time a cell saver is used, every time a JW has hemodilution, a transfusion occurs - of their own blood.

    Dr. Boyd has admitted, that in the same time frame, only one non-JW had to be exposed to the risks of a blood transfusion. ONLY ONE. Compared to 500 JWs who were being hooked up to machines, having their blood diluted, drained out of them, filtered, and then their blood being transfused back into them.

    Which group has the greatest risk from 'blood transfusions'?

    Which group has the greatest overall risk?

    Which group would you rather belong to?

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    I would like to add to this discussion another doctor quote used by the WTS that I just tracked down.

    In another thread about Russia banning the JWs, I had posted a court transcript from Russia and within that transcript, an expert's opinion on bloodless surgery was used. Mr. Stephen Pollard is a surgeon in the UK. I sent Mr. Pollard an email inquiring about his report and he gave me permission to use his quote. So, here is the email conversation.

    Dear Mr Pollard,

    I am doing research into bloodless medicine and I have discovered that you had the opportunity to prepare a statement for the Russian courts for the Jehovah's Witnesses in support of bloodless medicine. Would you be able to give me some information on that? "British surgeon Professor Stephen Pollard said in his expert opinion prepared for the Golovinsky court: "Everything is becoming more common treatment of patients are not Jehovah's Witnesses (especially doctors), to abstain from blood transfusions based solely on their knowledge of the risks associated with transfusion (consultant surgeon University Hospital St. James, Leeds, United Kingdom)." Thank you

    Mr. Pollard's reply:

    I have been forwarded your e-mail. This statement must have been many years ago and I have no record or recollection of it.

    I can be fairly sure that it would have been prepared at the request of a super chap called Jon Patterson, who was the JW hospital liaison officer at St James's Hospital for many years and with whom I had many dealings is the 1990s, so he might be your best starting point.

    Good luck!

    Steve Pollard

    Me again:

    Dear Mr Pollard,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. I hope you don't mind if I ask you one more question? Are you still of the opinion that 'bloodless' surgery is preferable to blood transfusions? And is this method actually becoming more common outside of the JW population, "especially doctors"? Thank you

    Mr. Pollard:

    I am not against blood transfusion but I have always felt that if you avoid a transfusion it is better; in particular if you set out to not lose blood it keeps your surgical skills crisper, the outcomes are better (and cheaper - transfused blood is expensive and the NHS is broke). Also blood availability can be an issue at Christmas and during the summer when people are away.

    I have not really seen any change over the past 20 years to be honest.

    Best wishes,

    Steve

    It seems like the WTS has a habit of taking doctor opinion out of context. When you read the court transcript, it sounds like Mr. Pollard is advocating for abstaining from blood for all patients, including doctors. The quote gives the impression as though "even doctors" are making the choice to abstain from blood. "Abstaining from blood" translates into "NO Blood".

    However, when you read Mr. Pollard's email reply, this is, and was not, his position - avoiding the over-use of blood is far, far, different than 'abstaining from blood'.

  • Gregor
    Gregor

    The Watchtower always made it clear that the prohibition of blood was NOT based on any practical health benefit (although they always brought it up) but was based strictly on God's law of the sanctity of blood. They covered all bases.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit