U.K. Article: Blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch
Blood transfusion refusals – why new guidelines aren’t up to scratch
February 22, 2017
Blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure. However, some groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, forbid blood transfusions on religious grounds. Recently, the Royal College of Surgeons issued new guidelines on what to do when a person rejects a transfusion based on religious belief. However, these guidelines need further clarification to make it easier for surgeons to act fully in line with developments in English law when it comes to children.
In recent years, there has been a move away from paternalistic medicine, where the doctor always knows best, and a move towards “shared-decision making” – a process that is enshrined in English law. This means that the patient is informed of all the risks and, together with the doctor, they make an informed decision.
The issue of transfusion refusals is becoming increasingly important because the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses is growing, as well as people who refuse blood transfusions for reasons unrelated to religion. And the guidelines make a good attempt to give direction to surgeons who have to grapple with potentially life-threatening situations involving the refusal of blood transfusions using a patient-focused approach.
Blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure. However, some groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, forbid blood transfusions on religious grounds.
I find the wording in the opening sentence problematic.
"However, some groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses..." gives the impression that there are more groups than just the Jehovah's Witnesses that forbid blood transfusions.
There isn't. I have yet to find any other group except the Jehovah's Witnesses that forbids blood transfusions.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are the ONLY religious group that forbids blood transfusions.
This opening sentence misleads the reader right from the start by implying that the JWs are just one of others who also follow the same practice. There are no others.
What the medical world does grapple with, however, is the spill over effect of the WT anti-blood propaganda. They refer to " people who refuse blood transfusions for reasons unrelated to religion". This group includes all the exJWs who cannot shake the anti-blood indoctrination they have been exposed to by the WT.
"Reasons unrelated to religion" means that lots of those people have believed the pseudo-science that the WT has spread about the dangers of blood transfusions. The WT is responsible for instilling a blood phobia in their followers and that phobia has spread like a virus into the medical community and into the patient community at large.
So do Christian Scientists take blood transfusions?
OrphanCrow: This opening sentence misleads the reader right from the start by implying that the JWs are just one of others who also follow the same practice. There are no others.
I knew that Christian Scientists would come up in this.
Tell me how the Christian Scientists ban on all medical treatment would effect the medical communities handling of no-blood procedures on Christian Scientist patients.
There are no Christian Scientists patients - they have excluded themselves from being considered for any medical care.
They don't qualify to be included in groups who forbid blood transfusions because their group doesn't exist at all when it comes to discussing medical care requirements.
Christian Scientists simply don't factor in when discussing blood transfusion refusal. It isn't like a doctor is faced with deciding whether to transfuse or not or what kind of medical procedures to follow when it come to the CS - there is no care - the CS person does not exist as a medical patient.
The Christian Scientist patient is a red herring - they don't exist.
A minor child of a Christian Scientist whose parents have been reported to the secular authorities, by teachers, neighbors, non-CS relatives.................get reported....If you read the articles in those links there are cases of minor children of CS parents cases.
Also non-CS religions, smaller groups but just as difficult to deal with
"...cases of minor children of CS parents cases"
Minor children would receive medical care - including blood. A blood transfusion would be a non-issue in those cases.
"Also non-CS religions, smaller groups but just as difficult to deal with"
And those would be...?
As your three posts indicate such an interest in this matter, I suggest you contact the article's author directly as ask him
His contact details are here: https://theconversation.com/profiles/clayton-oneill-322395
His email is: clayton.oneill @ ntu.ac.uk
His twitter is: https://twitter.com/ONeillClay
His phone number is listed here: https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/apps/staff_profiles/staff_directory/ddefc48e-36df-4f8a-b79d-ccd3071be943-0/26/profile.aspx?deptcode=NLS&deptTitle=Nottingham%20Law%20School&page=6
OC: Still haven't read the links have you?