Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

psychoslice · May 10, 2016

What I see in the bible is god telling us not to eat the blood, it has nothing to do with transfusion, after all why would god be against something that saves many lives.

Deeje · May 11, 2016

Shak34 said:
That explanation could work if this was a medical convention that talked about both sides, this was about blood saving lives. There would have been no reason to be a involved in something that supports blood transfusions. Them going to something that is all about supporting blood transfusions just to get Info to state to contrary is a little deceiving.

Since the very name of the convention was "WORLD HEALTH DAY ▼ SAFE BLOOD STARTS WITH ME" isn't it obvious that "unsafe" blood might also have been discussed?

Deeje · May 11, 2016

Aquitaine said:
Perhaps so, though what was your intention with this thread: some sort of vindication for JWs who have cited religious reasons for denying their sick children blood transfusions?

If you had bothered to watch the video, you would have seen the evidence for yourself. How can you pass judgment on something you haven't seen? Blood transfusions do the opposite to what is expected...they impede recovery rather than support it. Watch the video. They have known about this for years.

As for the whole emotive issue about the children...this has been discussed already in some detail...try to keep up OK? If you haven't read the comments what is the point of harping on about things already covered? I do not believe that there is a single state where parents are legally permitted to override the opinion of the doctors...its just a shame that a lot of doctors are not fully informed, or don't want to know. We are usually careful to choose doctors who know the risks and will not put our children in harm's way.

The intention of the thread was to inform people about the downside of the blood business. Doctors know there there is a downside, but it is not talked about much even when discussing the risks with patients.

People are free to do whatever they like about this issue, but it has been proven that the position of Jehovah's Witnesses and their stance on blood transfusions is not, and never has been, unreasonable. Media hype would have you believe otherwise.

blue taylor said:
I did watch the video, as I stated. I have addressed the OP, with a quote from the same website where the video came from. I got no answer. I guess there is something else that makes me not qualified to address OP?

Did I miss you bt? Oh well....there was actually nothing you raised that hasn't been covered already. I could post links all day and people would still believe that blood transfusions are completely safe.....cant win 'em all.

Pudding · May 11, 2016

So the op will not provide any peer review to prove the validity of that studies but will just keeps continue to say that the studies' results is facts because the video say so...?

JoStories · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
Jo, how can I respond to something like this when it is clear that you didn't even read the article regarding these kids whom the courts deemed to be "mature minors"? They were not forced by their parents to refuse blood. Their parents had no say under the law. These kids stood their ground on their own to stand up for what the Bible clearly outlines. If these children had diseases from which death was inevitable anyway, they did not see that prolonging their lives in this world was worth offending their God.....YES "THEIR" God. Please don't sell them short just because they are minors and disagree with your position. Who says you know better?

You are correct that I did not read the article and I did take Olinda's word about it. So for that, I apologize. With regards to what you posted about it, and I did mean to respond yesterday but never got around to it, the two 17 year olds were within their rights to refuse given that they could understand the ramifications of their decision and had the capacity for abstract thought. OTOH, the 12 year olds were too young for either and should never have been given the choice of what to do. IMO, the courts should have intervened.

JoStories · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
I was incredibly fortunate to have parents who did the same...I still chose to be a JW in spite of being raised in Christendom.

Our children are not coerced to become JW's...they are free to make up their own minds once they are of age. We certainly encourage them to put God's thoughts and ways first in their lives but the choice is ultimately theirs. We are not considered JW's until we make our own personal dedication to God. A mature child can do that, others wait until they feel that they are ready, still others never make a dedication at all and wander off into the world which often chews them up and spits them out and in many cases, they come back to the place where they felt safe and protected.

I must admit, I did not know this of your faith. And personally, I think it wonderful that you do this with your children. It reminds me of the Amish who allow their children to go out into the world and see for themselves if they wish to follow the very harsh life the Amish live, all of which is my opinion of course. I wish more faiths would do as yours does and my parents did. Children should never be forced into a faith. I would disagree with you that many who do decide to follow a different path end up in a bad way. I certainly did not. I am sure some do but it seems saying many do is a rather blanket statement.

JoStories · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
The fact that the findings of this "International Consensus Conference on Transfusion and Outcomes" were made public 10 years ago speaks for itself. Blood transfusions are embedded in the psyche of medical practitioners and they stubbornly refuse to alter their practices. The findings of the conference suggested an urgent re-evaluation of this practice way back then....but what do we see? Who really knows the truth? These ones who have been sounding the warning for years, only to have it fall on deaf ears. How many lives have been lost in the interim because of blood transfusions, compared to the 'few' that made headlines because they refused?

10 years is a lifetime in the practice of medical care and the practice thereof. In that 10 years, literally dozens or more of drugs have been put on the market and then removed for severe and lethal side effects. Lawyers sit around waiting for this to happen. Now, I grant you that lives have been lost on both sides of this issue. I will state, with 100% certainty that reactions to administration of blood have been very much eradicated. Now, that does not, of course, include allergic reactions. No one can predict those. But in a life ending situation where blood would with 100% certainty save that life, I cannot see any logical reason to not give that blood. I do agree that doctors resist change. As nurses, we call them 'dinosaurs' because of this. Thankfully, newer doctors are much more open to the advice of nurses, many of us who have seen far more than they and generally know what to do in many cases. These doctors you pointed to in the OP may have a cogent argument that should be studied and potentially put into practice in those cases where blood would possibly help. Consider the debate of stem cell research as one example of the resistance to change, where the use of stem cell research would and could stop or even cure many forms of cancer or neurological disease. Similar to the tenets of your faith with regard to blood, those opposed to stem cell research are most often opposed due to religious reasons. My opinion of this is that much much more research needs to be done in order to have conclusive and proven results.

JoStories · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
Is it Jo? Or is it more the case of the medical profession being reluctant to admit that they got it wrong? Imagine the law suits if it was proven that blood transfusions actually contributed to the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of patients?

Who signs a death certificate? Doctors can say that a patient died from X or Y and it would remain unchallenged if X or Y was in their medical history. But if the transfusion that the doctor administered was the actual cause of death...who would know? Doctors can 'get away with murder' apparently. If they keep going with the procedure, it sends the message that it's still safe....these specialist doctors have proven that it isn't. There are more sinister motives in this issue than most people realize.

I grant you that there are unethical doctors out there who would try to cover up mistakes however, given that it is nurses who administer the blood and we have a duty to stand against any decision that a doctor might make that we consider wrong, it is nurses who see what happens and by and large, I know of no nurses who would lie for said doctors. I am sure it happens but it is rare. For example, there was a case at Duke in North Carolina where a child -- roughly 12 I think, had the wrong type of blood via a heart that they transplanted died of the wrong type of blood/heart. Duke was rightfully sued for millions and they, of course, lost. Your outlook on doctors seems biased to me. You seem to have no confidence in any of them. Almost all hospitals have ethical committees. I know this as I have been a member of these committees. Any and I do mean any ethical issue, whether brought by a doctor, a nurse, or a patient or his or her family can be brought before that committee. I will add that the committees are made up of doctors, nurses, housekeepers, CEO's and people off the street. So there is no bias. Blood may cause harm. There is no doubt of that. However, in most cases, the benefits outweigh the harms.

JoStories · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
Perhaps they were invited...did you ever think of that?

I think its strange when people jump to conclusions.....why do you do that? Why must there be a sinister motive to whatever we do? It wouldn't matter what it was, our opposers would find something to complain about even if there was nothing to complain about. We kind of expect that, you know....

Let me ask you this Deeje. Are you not also jumping to conclusions based on this video and its content? Have you researched this topic and studied it as medical professionals have? Do you really feel that all of us who disagree with you are wrong and if you do, again, is that not you jumping to conclusions?

Aquitaine · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
If you had bothered to watch the video, you would have seen the evidence for yourself. How can you pass judgment on something you haven't seen? Blood transfusions do the opposite to what is expected...they impede recovery rather than support it. Watch the video. They have known about this for years.

As for the whole emotive issue about the children...this has been discussed already in some detail...try to keep up OK? If you haven't read the comments what is the point of harping on about things already covered? I do not believe that there is a single state where parents are legally permitted to override the opinion of the doctors...its just a shame that a lot of doctors are not fully informed, or don't want to know. We are usually careful to choose doctors who know the risks and will not put our children in harm's way.

The intention of the thread was to inform people about the downside of the blood business. Doctors know there there is a downside, but it is not talked about much even when discussing the risks with patients.

People are free to do whatever they like about this issue, but it has been proven that the position of Jehovah's Witnesses and their stance on blood transfusions is not, and never has been, unreasonable. Media hype would have you believe otherwise.

When you're quoting scripture and saying things like "It proves that God is right", it reveals your true intentions in this thread. I don't need to watch the video because you've already revealed yourself.
What needs to happen is JWs must put their faith below medical science.

Kelly of the Phoenix · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
If you watched the video in the OP you will see what happens when blood is administered compared to how the body responds when volume expanders are used. The evidence is very compelling. The very opposite occurs to what was believed to take place. They have never had this kind of evidence before and old habits die hard.

You are saying that if I watch this video, a solution with no hemoglobin will magically carry oxygen into cells?

Deeje said:
Like I said, it is a strongly entrenched procedure....it is not going to lie down quickly.

With a single internet search I found 4 blood transfusion journals with at least a couple not requiring subscription to read. I couldn't find ONE to suggest you're right.

Deeje said:
No, because to "abstain" covers all modes of administration. If an alcoholic is told to "abstain" from alcohol, can he inject it directly into his blood stream and still obey the doctor's orders?

We are to abstain from lots of things and yet we still do them. Jesus said I can't love my family and be Christian (how Christian of him!). Oh well.

Deeje said:
That used to be the case...but that thinking is no longer valid....as the video demonstrates very strongly.

The BLOOD TRANSFUSION JOURNALS ANYONE CAN READ SAY NO.

Deeje said:
Saline is at least NOT harmful. Is it just co-incidence that the human circulatory system is compatible with common sea water? They actually used sea water in WW2 as a substitute for blood when supply was outstripped by demand. Men recovered.

So, you know nothing of nursing and want to tell me I'm wrong? If I give something not ordered, even a saline solution, I risk hurting the patient. Saline is not likely to harm but it CAN. Andn where is the journal article or whatever talking about men getting sea water for blood transfusions?

Deeje said:
Now you are making me question your credentials. Not a theater nurse then, are you? I believe that the anesthetist is the one who administers blood whilst keeping tabs on the patients' vitals during surgery. It is not a laughing gas event we are discussing.

Since I linked a wiki page to show you what "anesthetists" do (they do the pain killers), I question YOUR nonmedical credentials. You say your denomination doesn't research anything itself (RED FLAG) but relies on the medical profession, but you are so ignorant of how medical professions work that you don't know the difference between "knock 'em out" guy and "surgeon". I am a rehabilitation nurse. It irks, me, but a rehabilitation doctor does not order things that the internal medicine doctor does, even though they both went to school for the same general time period at first. It's like you're saying that cardiologist congressman awhile back from TN should be able to tell us from a neurological perspective that a brain dead woman was actually alive and interacting with people and his only proof was an out of date youtube video. That kind of ignorance ticked me off then, and it ticks me off now.

Deeje said:
If almost 90% of transfusions are administered unnecessarily, then the same stats must apply to children.

That is absolutely WRONG. The ONLY time I ever have to use decimal points putting IV's is when I was in my pediatrics class, because adults don't need that much fine tuning. The metabolic needs of children are NOT the same as mature adults. You now need to read PEDIATRIC journals, not just general journals. I know there are big words, but it can be done.

Deeje said:
"Do anesthesiologists administer blood transfusions?
Anesthesiologists administer approximately half the blood transfusions in the United States and are experts in making the risk and benefit assessments needed during a transfusion. Anesthesiologists are committed to the responsible use of the blood supply and to make the best decisions for patients."

Yes, I find it sad that we let people trained to give pain meds do blood transfusions. The majority of that page discusses they are in the business of pain relief during surgery. Plus, I find it funny that you are arguing that a profession that kills thousands of people a year should be lecturing us about the safety of blood transfusions.

Shadow Wolf said:
You do realize you're arguing against people who have went to school for such things, right? People who have been trained and educated in the field and have degrees in medicine, but you're trying to say you know more than they do?

Of course she and her denomination know more than we do IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. They are adamant they don't research anything themselves and refuse to read actual journals and only rely on blogs and videos! How can they go wrong?

GOD, nothing irritates the medical profession more than people who skimmed webmd.com and then want to tell us our jobs....

Deeje said:
It is the medical profession itself.

No, it is not. It is one guy. Me an' JoStories are "IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION" and you are telling us we are wrong.

Deeje said:
This is not ME saying so.....the head of Anesthesiology at a major hospital says so along with specialists in that field of medicine in other countries. Please take your fingers out of your ears

If a chief medical person would tell you sickness is related to demons or humours ... RUN.

Deeje said:
Also, taking your own blood and having it stored before a surgical procedure can lead to having a low blood count and cancelling of the surgery. This happened to my mother. She was too anemic for the operation and it had to be postponed.

If only there was a procedure that could've helped her ... oh, wait ...

Maybe you should've given her some normal saline. She should be fine.

Deeje said:
Believe it or not...it's none of my business what anyone does with this information. It was presented FYI. OK?

You are arguing that we change policy because one denomination does not want to read journals, leading to patient harm. Sorry.

Deeje said:
It proves that God is right...not me.

It proves Australia's medical licensing board should revoke his.

Deeje said:
Their parents had no say under the law.

Their parents had no say in their care? What about years of indoctrination?

Deeje said:
Who signs a death certificate? Doctors can say that a patient died from X or Y and it would remain unchallenged if X or Y was in their medical history. But if the transfusion that the doctor administered was the actual cause of death...who would know? Doctors can 'get away with murder' apparently. If they keep going with the procedure, it sends the message that it's still safe....these specialist doctors have proven that it isn't. There are more sinister motives in this issue than most people realize.

Autopsies. It's a thing.

Deeje said:
If you haven't watched the video, you are not qualified to address the OP.

If you haven't read publically accessible blood transfusion journals, you are not qualified to make recommendations to medical policy.
edit:

You know what? For anyone interested:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2187/

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbt/contents/

http://www.omicsonline.org/blood-disorders-transfusion.php

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.v91.5/issuetoc

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/127/18?current-issue=y

Kelly of the Phoenix · May 11, 2016

Here are some items from ACTUAL sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418436/

The potential benefits of HBOCs include universal compatibility without the need for cross matching of donated blood, availability, lack of infection and long term storage. The term “blood substitute” however, has often been inaccurately used to describe these compounds as they do not perform normal blood functions, such as transport of nutrients, immune response, and coagulation. As an “oxygen bridge” HBOCs can however, complement standard blood transfusions in extreme, life-threatening situations, such as trauma, in some surgical settings and when blood is not an option (e.g., patient refusal due to religious objections and unavailability owing to issues of compatibility or remote location)

So, we need substitutes NOT for safety reasons per se, but for availability and refusal issues.

One question which remains unresolved is whether oxygen binding properties of a given HBOC should by design match that of the RBCs (i.e., low oxygen affinity [large P50] or high oxygen affinity [small P50] (Box 1). No animal or human data are available that can convincingly support either of these options.

Coagulation defects, thrombocytopenia and thrombosis were also reported in clinical trials of some HBOCs [9].

Hope you don't like bleeding to death when you're already running low.

Several clinical trials have revealed increased frequencies of myocardial infarction in patients who were infused with some HBOCs [9]

Don't like heart attacks? Tough!

In spite of 30 years of active research and development, no clinically viable product has been approved in the United States.

That last one's my favorite.

http://www.omicsonline.org/physical...-spectroscopy-2153-2435.1000235.php?aid=14556

CFS™ technology demonstrates excellent potential over conventional Raman spectroscopy techniques to analyze reliably PFCs in vitro. We further aim to apply CFS™ technology combined to confocal laser microscope, high pressure liquid-chromatography (HPLC) and high-throughput screening (HTS) systems to: (i) ensure safety and security of PFCs-based products (e.g. avoidance of counterfeited blood substitutes); (ii) qualitatively and quantitatively characterize PFCs and F-metabolites in biological fluids using various physical-chemical conditions (e.g. pH, temperature); (iii) determinate in vivo (e.g. using animal models of disease such sickle cell disease or tumor-bearing mice) the presence of PFCs, their localization and, their metabolism notably through pharmacokinetic studies; (iv) develop PFCs-based nanomaterials for early diagnosis (e.g. “green” enhanced imaging) and progressive/controlled-drug delivery (e.g. personalized targeted therapy).

There is a risk of fraudulent blood substitutes? Say it ain't so!

So far, from what I've read in ACTUAL sources, we're nowhere near ready as blood substitutes can't actually reproduce all the functions of blood and unless you count lab rats and such, all the work they've done so far is in beakers and petri dishes. I've read NOTHING about safety issues about blood products other than things we already knew (ANY time you do an invasive procedure and introduce something to the body, you risk "problems). War has made it necessary to plead with scientists to come up with substitutes because not enough people donate (the first time I tried, they couldn't stick me 'cause I tend to be dehydrated, though I have no ethical issues with trying again once I've got enough blood, LOL).

Shak34 · May 11, 2016

Deeje said:
Perhaps they were invited...did you ever think of that?

I think its strange when people jump to conclusions.....why do you do that? Why must there be a sinister motive to whatever we do? It wouldn't matter what it was, our opposers would find something to complain about even if there was nothing to complain about. We kind of expect that, you know....

Really?

This was a World Blood Donor Day campaign. So it is okay to go to something that is against your beliefs when your invited?

Deeje said:
Since the very name of the convention was "WORLD HEALTH DAY ▼ SAFE BLOOD STARTS WITH ME" isn't it obvious that "unsafe" blood might also have been discussed?

Don't forget the rest of the slogan was "Blood Saves Lives!" Little hypocritical to go to a campaign that supports one of the things that is against your beliefs don't you think?

Deeje · May 11, 2016

JoStories said:
You are correct that I did not read the article and I did take Olinda's word about it. So for that, I apologize. With regards to what you posted about it, and I did mean to respond yesterday but never got around to it, the two 17 year olds were within their rights to refuse given that they could understand the ramifications of their decision and had the capacity for abstract thought. OTOH, the 12 year olds were too young for either and should never have been given the choice of what to do. IMO, the courts should have intervened.

It was the judge's decision that the 12 year olds were mature minors who knew exactly what they were doing and were fully cognizant of the fact that death was inevitable. No amount of blood would save them. They chose not to prolong their suffering, which as a nurse you have witnessed. Chemo is devastating on an already weakened body. Sometimes these kids just don't want the suffering to go on. The children of Jehovah's witnesses do not fear death because they see beyond it.

Let me ask you this Deeje. Are you not also jumping to conclusions based on this video and its content? Have you researched this topic and studied it as medical professionals have? Do you really feel that all of us who disagree with you are wrong and if you do, again, is that not you jumping to conclusions?

I am very skeptical of the medical professional, not so much the doctors themselves. They have a system that teaches them certain things as truth, but if that system is flawed and stubborn when it comes to change, I believe that it becomes like the churches....the system turns out clones of itself and the whole thing fails because no one thinks they can be in error. Pride dictates rather than reason.

If you saw the video in the OP there were initially 45 studies mentioned which reviewed 272,596 patients and their post operative response to blood transfusions. This is not a small group of patients, nor are these doctors on the fringes of medicine, but are specialists in their field who have been sounding a warning for some time about the risks verses the benefits. Their findings were alarming.
In 495 studies presented at the 2009 International Consensus Conference, almost 60 % of all transfusions were deemed to be "inappropriate". Of the patients studied, that means that probably hundreds of thousands of transfusions were considered to be unnecessary. Given the cost of transfusions, this is an enormous amount of money wasted, and given also that transfusions were linked with "increased morbidity mortality"...that is very worrying, isn't it?

All I can ask is that you watch the video and assess what these doctors are saying. Is it an inconvenient truth?

Hockeycowboy · May 11, 2016

Nietzsche said:
I'll remember that the next time you're bleeding out in an OR.

Two words: volume expander

Hockeycowboy · May 12, 2016

Taylor Seraphim said:
Coming from some one who uses an outdated book of myths.

Old, yes.....but never outdated.

It's principles will always benefit those adhering to them.

James 1:19; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:17-20; Colossians 4:6; Ephesians 4:1-3; Ephesians 4:31-32; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, etc., etc. Fine guidelines for building / keeping any strong relationships, especially in marriage! It is never outdated!

psychoslice · May 12, 2016

The last thing a person who has had a terrible accident and lost most of their blood, needs a god looking down and wanting to send you to hell for having a blood transfusion, lets get real.

Hockeycowboy · May 12, 2016

psychoslice said:
The last thing a person who has had a terrible accident and lost most of their blood, needs a god looking down and wanting to send you to hell for having a blood transfusion, lets get real.

Was anything said about God sending a person to hell?

Did I miss it?

psychoslice · May 12, 2016

Hockeycowboy said:
Was anything said about God sending a person to hell?

Did I miss it?

No, but consider it said.

Hockeycowboy · May 12, 2016

Aquitaine said:
When you're quoting scripture and saying things like "It proves that God is right", it reveals your true intentions in this thread. I don't need to watch the video because you've already revealed yourself.
What needs to happen is JWs must put their faith below medical science.

What are her "true intentions"? Is she making any money?

Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Avid Bible Student

Witness for Jehovah

Witness for Jehovah

Veteran Member

Witness for Jehovah

Veteran Member

Witness for Jehovah