Baumgartner - Dr. Mark Morehart: State of Washington Appeal Court - aborted use of cell saver machine

by darkspilver 42 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  darkspilver

  @ dubstepped: Who said blood transfusions were without risk?
  

  OrphanCrow said that: "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."

  A six sigma safety rating is the equivalent to the occurrence of 3.4 defects per million opportunities - a defect is everything that does not meet customer requirements such as even staying in the hospital one day longer than required or a mistake during the procedure.

  https://www.isixsigma.com/industries/healthcare/six-sigma-powerful-strategy-healthcare-providers/

  Interestingly The Serious Hazards Of Transfusion - SHOT - is the United Kingdom’s independent, professionally-led haemovigilance scheme, which is funded by the four British Blood Transfusion Services and is based at the Manchester Blood Centre, UK.

  They collect statistical data, and present an annual review - 2016 hasn't been published yet, so the latest one is 2015.
  
  http://www.shotuk.org/
  
  
  
• 

  schnell

  Okay.

  There are risks in it, we know that. Not all doctors like doing it, and we know that too.

  End.
• 

  dubstepped

  When did "the safest" equate to "without risk"? I believe that's called a "straw man" fallacy, and kind of shows that you're not as unbiased in favor of the dubs as you claim to be.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  I don't get where you are coming up with it is the six sigma of prescribing and that six sigma means it is the safest.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  RO: I don't get where you are coming up with it is the six sigma of prescribing and that six sigma means it is the safest.

  Of course you don't. You haven't done your research.

  I have posted the source for my comment on other threads on here and it would take some time to find it.

  My comments are derived from an FDA document where exactly what I said was stated by, I believe, the person responsible for blood transfusion safety for the US.

  I based my comment on what he said - he was the one who made that claim in an FDA document discussing the safety of artificial blood. I am pretty sure it is the same document where the US Army (or was it the Navy?) was trying to convince the FDA that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the ideal population on which to continue testing artificial blood products.

  I will look for that document if you are really interested in reading it. If not...please don't waste my time.

  Which brings up this question - did you bother to read the link I posted in my last comment?
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Where in your reference does it use the term six sigma?
• 

  OrphanCrow

  RO: Where in your reference does it use the term six sigma?

  It doesn't. I didn't claim it did. That reference was not for the six sigma statement. That reference is for the real truth about transfusion risks. I thought you could use those facts.

  As I said before...:

  My comments are derived from an FDA document where exactly what I said was stated by, I believe, the person responsible for blood transfusion safety for the US.
  I based my comment on what he said - he was the one who made that claim in an FDA document discussing the safety of artificial blood. I am pretty sure it is the same document where the US Army (or was it the Navy?) was trying to convince the FDA that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the ideal population on which to continue testing artificial blood products.
  I will look for that document if you are really interested in reading it. If not...please don't waste my time.
• 

  darkspilver

  (hey dubstepped - I think we're getting caught up in the middle.)

  ANY medical procedure has risks - the important thing is knowing those risks, and managing them.

  While refusing blood increases those risks in many cases - the issue here is OrphanCrow's arguing that blood transfusions are safer than they actually are - her 'six sigmas' for example - or just 3.4 defects per million opportunites.

  The Serious Hazards Of Transfusion organisation studies ALL the issues regarding blood transfusion and publishes an annual report.

  http://www.shotuk.org/
  

  Did you know that even merely DONATING blood could be riskier than OrphanCrow's six sigmas?
  

  SHOT's annual report report SAEDs - that's serious adverse events of donation - as well as issues and problems with the use of cell-salvage / cell-savers. It's a pretty comprehensive annual report - but it is 190 pages....
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Ah...here you go.

  For all you doubters:

  https://www.labce.com/spg539547_six_sigma_level_of_quality_in_health_care.aspx

  I can also find that in FDA documents if anyone is interested
• 

  darkspilver

  Ah right, so based purely on fatality as being the one 'defect' that is counted - that's apparently completely different to how it's worked out as per my original website reference:
  

  A six sigma safety rating is the equivalent to the occurrence of 3.4 defects per million opportunities - a defect is everything that does not meet customer requirements such as even staying in the hospital one day longer than required or a mistake during the procedure.

  https://www.isixsigma.com/industries/healthcare/six-sigma-powerful-strategy-healthcare-providers/

  Again, according to SHOT, it seems unlikely that even merely donating blood reaches a six sigmas level according to the above.
  

  http://www.shotuk.org

  You really should read their annual report - 190 pages - I'm sure you'll appreciate it and how far ranging and comprehensive the data is and how it is broken down.