How safe are blood transfusions? Jehovah's Witnesses misinformation to debunk!

[andyandy]

This is in the news in the UK at the moment, as a UK women died after birth after refusing a blood transfusion due to her JW beliefs....

There is a good deal on blood transfusions on The Watchtower website....

http://www.watchtower.org/e/medical_care_and_blood.htm

Certain points are clear from the foregoing information. Though many people view them as lifesaving, blood transfusions are fraught with risks. Each year thousands die as a result of transfusions; multitudes more get very sick and face long-term consequences. So, even from a physical standpoint, there is wisdom right now in heeding the Biblical command to 'abstain from blood.'—Acts 15:28, 29.

Patients are protected from many hazards if they request nonblood medical management. Skilled physicians who have accepted the challenge of applying this on Jehovah's Witnesses have developed a standard of practice that is safe and effective, as is proved in numerous medical reports. Physicians who provide quality care without blood are not compromising valued medical principles. Rather, they show respect for a patient's right to know risks and benefits so that he can make an informed choice as to what will be done to his body and life.

snip

He no doubt believed that blood would have been lifesaving. The year after he wrote that, however, The British Journal of Surgery (October 1986) reported that prior to the advent of transfusions, gastrointestinal hemorrhage had "a mortality rate of only 2.5 per cent." Since transfusions became customary, 'most large studies report a 10-percent mortality.' Why a death rate four times as high? The researchers suggested: "Early blood transfusion appears to reverse the hypercoagulable response to haemorrhage thereby encouraging rebleeding." When the Witness with the bleeding ulcer refused blood, his choice may actually have maximized his prospects for survival.

snip

You may already realize something that many physicians come to appreciate with "the passage of time and treating many patients." Even with the best of medical care in the finest of hospitals, at some point people die. With or without blood transfusions, they die. All of us are aging, and life's end is approaching. That is not fatalistic. It is realistic. Dying is a fact of life.

The evidence shows that people who disregard God's law on blood often experience immediate or delayed harm; some even die from the blood. Those who survive have not gained endless life. So blood transfusions do not save lives permanently.

Most people who, for religious and/or medical reasons, refuse blood but accept alternative medical therapy do very well. They may thus extend their life for years. But not endlessly.

That all humans are imperfect and are gradually dying leads us to the central truth of what the Bible says about blood. If we understand and appreciate this truth, we will see how blood can actually save life—our life—lastingly

and a lot more about blood with specific examples of past viruses spread through transfusion (largely confined to the 1980s)

blood transfusions, "how safe?" (http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_02.htm)

So, what are the actual figures with regards to blood transfusions? How many people benefit? How many lives do they save? How many people have been adversely affected?

....and is there a debunking JW blood transfusion information site?

cheers :)

[Schneibster]

According to WebMD, the chances of an immune reaction are about 1 in 14,000. Most immune reactions don't result in death. No risk factor for infections is given; screening of blood reduces the risk as much as possible. I had a google around and didn't find any evaluation of the risks of infection. They are said to be reduced by filtering out leukocytes, and this appears to be a relatively common practice.

If you are in an accident and lose a lot of blood, you will most likely die if you do not get a transfusion in time. If you are a hemophiliac or have sickle cell anemia, you will most likely die if you do not get regular transfusions. There are medical professionals here who can probably chime in with more information.

[volatile]

Did you see my post in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97899) on this? It makes me so cross!

[Dogdoctor]

They are just rationalizing, the real reason they don't allow blood transfusions is their interpretation of the Bible. If you want to get them to change their minds that is what you would have to debunk (the Bible).

[Rolfe]

Not an expert, but as I understand it the verse they are using is generally held to be advocating the proper bleeding-out of meat, and abstention from things like black pudding.

Nobody had even dreamed of the concept of blood transfusions at the time that was written!

It would be interesting to know at what point in the history of blood transfusions (which are of very recent origin) the JWs decided they were covered by that prohibition.

Of course there are risks involved, principally of acquired infections. As these have become better understood, physicians are rightly tending to confine transfusions to circumstances where they are genuinely necessary. Any vet will tell you that you can get away with quite a lot before a transfusion becomes absolutely essential to save a life. However, to dissuade people from having transfusions which are essential to their survival is simply criminal.

Rolfe.

[Dr. Imago]

The chance of immune reaction is substantially higher in uncrossmatched blood, which can happen in trauma and other emergency situations where blood transfusion is not planned in advance. That being said, we do recognize these reactions on occassion and it's correct that they are treated by stopping the transfused blood and initiating supportive care. I've not personally known of a patient that's died from a transfusion, or even had contact or heard of one from any practitioner I'm directly and routinely in contact.

I, too, have had a JW patient die because she (or rather her family) refused a blood transfusion. The practices are interesting, and vary according to individual. For instance, some will allow CellSaver (a device that recycles and washes the patient's own blood then gives it back to them) while others won't, stating that once blood has left the body it is no longer "sacred" and can't be given back to them.

I have had some serious discussions about blood transfusion with JW patients, and I can tell you the reaction varies. It is similar to the "atheist in a foxhole" scenario, and have had one or two change their opinion to "well, if it's absolutely necessary to save my life" when faced with the proposition. In one particular case (a patient whom I'd met in the pre-operative evaluation clinic scheduled to undergo a myomectomy, a potentially very bloody procedure), she decided to cancel the case.

I have to respect their decision, and I will not give blood if it is clear they do not want it, even to save their life. In the case where a patient died, it was following an orthopedic procedure and she had a cardiac arrest simply because her blood levels were too low which strained an already diseased heart. We "coded" her for almost two hours. There was nothing else we could do. Blood would have saved her life, her family understood this, and they chose to let her die with her beliefs. That's part of living in a country which allows you to freely exercise your beliefs, and gives one control over their own medical treatment decisions. My job is to make sure, in no unclear way, that they understand the consequences of their decisions.

-Dr. Imago

[Capsid]

Previous threads on this forum have asked why did non-pathogenic SIVcpz in chimps become highly pathogenic HIV in humans. I was surprised by one answer I heard recently (not from this forum) that blood transfusions in Africa could have inadvertently been the cause. Repeated in vivo passage of viruses can make them more pathogenic, and blood transfusions which were becoming more widely established in the 1950s and 60s at about the time HIV is thought to have arisen, would have been an efficient means of "hotting up" SIVcpz.

[Sinope]

Pretty safe I think is the answer. (at least in the UK)

I am a regular blood donor. I have to complete a lengthy questionnaire every time I donate. Here, there is no reason to lie as people do it it completely altruistically. I guess if you contracted HIV (or something else) in the 3 months before you gave blood, it may skip through the tests but if you answered the questionare honestly, there is little chance of that. I gues the main worry here is CJD?

I have to admit I would be a lot more worried to recieve blood in a country where they pay people to donate. That sort of system seems like it would attract those desperate for money, who are also sometimes, unfortunatley, people with high risk of having HIV/Hep B/C etc.

I don't think the reason the JW refuse blood is anything to do with how safe it is though. At least there are laws here which mean that JW's children, who require blood to save their lifes, can get it. (interestingly, they can still be JW's - if they take blood "against their will" ie court mandated, then it is acceptable within their religion)

[Walrus32]

Like all medical/surgical treatments, it comes down to benefit vs. risk. These days, the risk of whole blood or blood cell replacement are extremely low, and the indications are somewhat more stringent. Nowadays, any doctor that gives his slightly anemic patient a unit of blood "to make her feel better" will quickly find himself on the carpet before a hospital QA committee.

[DRBUZZ0]

Always be suspicious of information which comes from a source which has an agenda entirely unrelated to the information given but pertaining to the same thing.

This is a prime example. They simply are choosing to express this because it supports their beliefs against blood transfusions whether or not it is accurate or balanced.

It's the same as when the chruch goes on and on about the risks of sex. Do they really do so because they care about the risks? No. Even if all sexual activities were 100% free of any dangers they would still oppose it.

They oppose it because they see it as immoral or improper or because their book says so. Hence they'll latch onto anything which is not at all relevant to what they believe but just happens to support the same end.