According to him, one to two units of blood was taken from the patient and replaced with intravenous fluids. The bleeding during the surgery would, therefore, be diluted blood. Dr Aniteye, who is also a lecturer at the University of Ghana Medical School, said after the surgery, the blood taken was put back.
I presume this is wrong, and WT isn't 'test running' a new policy here before rolling it out worldwide?
2. I am one of Jehovah?s Witnesses, and I direct that NO TRANSFUSIONS of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma be given me under any circumstances, even if health-care providers believe that such are necessary to preserve my life. I refuse to predonate and store my blood for later infusion.
Quoted from the Advance Health Care Directive (the new Blood Card). Item 2 is not an option as are items 3-5.
The AMD is straightforward, but as is so typical of the WTS, other material they publish gives them wiggle room. Their own video on blood and bloodless surgery touted the use of hemodilution and cell salvage techniques. There was even a part in the service meeting (a couple of months back?) that, to me at least, sounded like these were now optional.
Edit: "Fading" means I don't get the KMs regularly but I did manage to find the Canadian Dec 2003 KM and it had basically the same question and answer part on the video called Transfusion-Alternative Health Care - Meeting Patient Needs and Rights.
You might be interested in this discussion about the procedures the WTS allows that really rely on stored blood. Also, the hemoglobin-based products (hemoglobin is a fraction of red blood cells), are made out of stored blood.
Thanks all for your comments.
I understand that there's not been any change in the 'West.'
However, consider what we already know:
the Society agreed to unique, country-specific rules for Bulgaria (though, of course, they now deny it);
there is a constant struggle between the 'hawks' and 'doves' in Brooklyn over autologous transfusions.
So the Ghanaian newspaper article could be explained in one of two ways:
(1) The consultant anaesthetist simply misunderstood the WT policy.
This is possible but unlikely because:
this is a major teaching hospital, and is the main hospital for West Africa;
the bloodless surgery program was specially designed for JWs and, although not stated in the article, it would be hard to believe that WT Ghana branch's Hospital Information Desk would not have been closely involved in developing such a significant program for JWs.
(2) WT 'doves' are testing a new policy in West Africa.
The reasons for thinking this are:
as the majority of JWs are either unaware of, or choose to ignore, the Bulgaria situation, WT leaders think they have 'got away with' containing a change of policy within a single country;
therefore WT leaders (or at least the 'doves,' who want to reform the organisation into a more mainstream Christian religion) now feel more confident introducing a minor reform in a remote part of the world, where it would most likely be overlooked;
even the GB 'hawks' want to get rid of the blood policy, but need to do so without losing face (i.e. their authority) or being swamped with lawsuits: this would be a good way of 'testing the water';
even if it all goes horribly wrong, it is not such a major reform that it could not be easily deniable or explained away to upset JWs as a 'misunderstanding';
if there is no outcry or serious defections from among the 'rank and file,' the policy could then be safely introduced in the rest of the world.
Does anyone on JWD have any 'inside' information on what went on 'behind the scenes' in Accra?
Are there any other possibilities? Or am I just being too conspiratorial?