Baumgartner - Dr. Mark Morehart: State of Washington Appeal Court - aborted use of cell saver machine
The JW patient died because the machine used, essential
to his lifeto adherence to WTBS doctrine, failed.
Fixed it for you.
I tried to upload a photo of a billboard advertising "no blood surgery Safe options for your family, reducing the risk and compliations" from one of the major hospitals in the US. In fact, first heart trasplant in the US was done in this hospital. The upload failed -But JW are not the only ones that opt for no blood surgery. The hospital offers the option to everyone regardless of religion.
Yeah, well every JW in the world will tell you that "you hardly need ANY blood in your body to survive, its only the medical cabal that has caused you to believe that you need blood if you lose it. The Red Cross is behind all this. . . and did you hear about the JW lady who only had two ounces of blood left in her body and survived?Blood transfusions are just a big conspiracy and JWs don't really die from a lack of blood, they die from blood transfusions! "
The first quote out of this doctor's mouth:
"sometimes when a person gets blood it is more dangerous for them than if they didn't get blood"
That is a no brainer. But...then he just goes on to promote 'bloodless' medicine and he says nothing that defines what that "sometimes" means in the larger picture. How many times is "sometimes"? Is sometimes once in a thousand? Once in 10,000? Or is it one in 100,000? Or more? Or is it less? Is it every second time, third...or a million?
Of course there is risk involved in a blood transfusion. However, and this is a big however, blood transfusions are the safest procedure available to the medical profession. The safest. That is a fact. Blood transfusions are the only medical procedure that reaches a six sigma safety rating. That is a fact.
What this doctor fails to say is that every time a person does not get blood when they experience severe blood loss...they die
I just have to say a bit more about that promotional video for bloodless medicine that Fisherman posted.
The "bloodless" industry is dependent upon blood transfusion technology. Without blood transfusions, there would be no "bloodless" medicine.
The doctor in this video emphasizes how much better it is to avoid blood. What he fails to mention is that "sometimes" (a lot of the time, actually...) the alternatives to allogenic blood transfusions that are being developed are riskier than the blood transfusion itself.
Case in point: Hemopure et al
Artificial/synthetic blood is the holy grail of the bloodless industry. Hemopure, along with others like Polyheme, did not get FDA approval. And why was that? Well...if you took Hemopure instead of the standard allogenic blood transfusion, you increased your risk of dying by as much as 30%.
I won't even get into any of the other "alternatives" that are promoted by the bloodless cult and how those alternatives have increased morbidity and mortality in the patients who have used them.
The bloodless industry shamelessly hides that their promotional material is deceptive and they don't reveal the true cost of pursuing ideology in favor of unbiased medical science. Sound familiar?
Blood transfusions certainly do save lives. But you cannot say it is not without risk. Blood banks and hospitals have greatly reduced the risk of infectious diseases being transmitted, so I don't mean to say that is part of the risk. But there are other risks including fluid overload, ARDS, cross match issues and rejection of your body of the transfusion which could cause anemia. Even the most basic of all medical procedures will have inherent risks to it.
@Richard - Who said blood transfusions were without risk?
Richard, please, please, read the information at the following link very carefully. If you really want to bring up "risks", it would be a good idea if you knew the facts about those risks.
I had a doctor who taught a class for me. He absolutely hated prescribing blood to patients because he knew the effects that could occur. But yes blood does save lives but it still has inherent risks to it. Even administering oxygen to patients, are risky. You don't give a high concentration of oxygen to a COPD patient, because that is more dangerous than if you allow their PO2 levels to drop a little.