Blood - A Balanced View??

Aude_Sapere

I think that rather than being completely anti-blood or completely accepting of doctor's decisions it is much better to remain guarded with regard to blood transfusions.

Although I recently rescinded my No Blood AMD, I want to find a way to document that although I will accept blood, my preference is to first work with plasma expanders and the like.

Today a friend of mine died. About a month ago she was given a blood transfusion as part of treatment for internal bleeding following gastric bypass surgery. Following the transfusion, she had grand mal seizure that was difficult to control and subsequently went into a coma. She was comatose for 4 weeks and today her family made the decision to terminate life support. She died at 7:10 this evening.

I don't know if there was any alternative to blood but I'm still a little leary about whether or not blood is viewed as a 'quick fix' with some surgeons...

Back in the 70's, the young son of a single mom in my congregation was given blood after he stopped breathing. Baby-sitter revived him and got him to hospital where transfusion was given. Child died from Circulatory Overload.

I know that blood has saved many people's lives but I not inclined to believe that is completely harmless, either.

My own experiences are that treatment was more carefully thought-out when blood was *not* an option.

About 10 years ago, my brother was seriously injured and had lost enough blood for him to lose consciousness. He was alert enough to write 'no blood' on his consent forms in the ambulance. First doctor in the ER (very experienced) decided that he couldn't be bothered with the 'no blood' directive and passed the case on to the newbie doctor. This doctor had spent several years in south-central LA and was highly experienced with gang-related injuries and extreme blood loss. Brother healed extremely well and was home 3 days later.

My biopsy in 1998 was supposed to be a little tricky. Medial-stenoscopy would involve an incision at the base of my neck and then down to my heart to take some snippets of a tumor. There was risk of clipping necessary tissue in this area of 'high-priced real estate' and doctor assured me that blood would be on hand in the ER. At the time, I was still in my walk-away believer state and said that I did not want blood - in any form. After making sure that I was resolute, surgeon re-assessed me and decided to check my neck again. Seemed to have some smaller tumors there and he felt he could get sufficient sampling from my neck. Surgery was successful and I went home the next day.

These are just 2 stories where things went terribly wrong with blood and two stories where things went much better without blood. I know there are many, many examples that are not so dramatic but these are the ones closest to me right now.

I know that sometimes blood complicates things and I wonder if sometimes we are too quick to give doctors carte blanch since changing our personal views on blood.

I believe that treatment may sometimes be better without.

Any thoughts??

-Aude.

rebel8

Most people are leary about taking blood products, and rightly so. It is not just JWs that are hesitant. Non-JWs refuse blood every day. IMO it should only be accepted when absolutely necessary and no other alternatives are available, and I am speaking from the experience of having many transfusions. I have refused blood countless times--more times than I've accepted it.

Execute a new document that explains your wishes, and make it a health care power of attorney to ensure someone you trust will be making decisions for you if you are unconscious. List a backup POA in case that person is unconscious too.

GoingGoingGone

Good ideas, Rebel... thanks!

I recently shredded my 'No Blood' card (it was over 4 years old, so it's not like I've cared to keep it up to date...) In case of extreme emergency, I don't want that in my wallet. But I would prefer treatment without blood if at all possible.

GGG

rebel8

Oh, and have you discussed this with your primary care physician? And any specialists you see? You could ask them to document it in their notes in case the need arises at some later time.

truthsetsonefree

Thats my position too, caution that is. If only the GB would get it through their thick skulls that the blood thing needs to be left to people's consciences, they would find many JWs would be cautious anyway.

"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" someone once said.

Aude_Sapere

Rebel - As always, good reasoning and strong and direct encouragement. Thank you so very much for responding to my posts. I appreciate your clear and thoughtful responses.

Goinggoinggone - My blood card has been gone for many years. Now it's time to update hospital and physician records.

Truth - To be sure! If they could just relinquish a little of the power hold that they maintain on the people, it might (just might) cause less of them to balk at the control.

-Aude.

crazyblondeb

I've worked in the ER for 6 years. The majority of docs use blood when ABSOLUTELY neccessary. There are, of course, a few that use it whenever. There are also blood expanders, and different components of blood that can be used. The grand mal seizure you spoke of might have been related to the blood or been from other factor.

I have also worked a case where a 3 year old required blood to live. There were no if, ands, or buts about it. The elders were there, putting the young parents thru hell. After speaking to the doctor and the legal department it took less than 2 hours to get a guardianship order to allow the blood. The elders made asses out of themselves. Even tried to get them to sneak the child out. I finally had them escorted out by security and restricted visitors.

The parents thanked me for taking the decision out of their hands. They were SO relieved. PLUS-it was SSOOOO priceless seeing the elders escorted out.!!!! I've been able to help with several patients that were JWs.

shelley

jwfacts

Blood is basically an organ transplant and carries associated risks with it. I would choose not to have blood unless considered essential. But as the CrazyBlonde says, most doctors are well intentioned and will attempt to recommend the best alternative for the situation.

skyman

I am with you. I think that the DR"s use blood way to often. But If it was a life or death matter then yes use blood because their is no Biblical comand on us it was made up by the Society. If any read here believed that the bible is against the taking of blood put a message in my inbox and I will send you some reseach about blood that will remove these thinking form you taken only from the bible and Watchtower publications.

rebel8

I have definitely seen an attitude change over the years--physicians are much more cautious about giving blood these days.

I recommend to anyone who receives blood or tissues to obtain medical records and save them in a safe place. In case you find out years down the road you contracted a retrovirus, you will have documentation.

Blood - A Balanced View??

Share this