Evidence In Favor Of Bloodless Surgery Mounts

Evidence In Favor Of Bloodless Surgery Mounts.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281102

Bangalore

hmm. it seem pretty solid, but i wonder: if the doctors are performing a bloodless surgery, they puncture an artery and has to administer blood as a last-minute precaution or the patient will die because of low red blood cell count, is that still counted in the statistics as a bloodless surgery?

Thanks for posting, Bangalore,

All this makes sense from a medical point of view.

The problem is a lot of DumbDubs will see this as some sort of vindication of their murderous and unscriptural Blood policy/doctrine. Sigh.

Love

Wobble

The caution of course is this is a journalist's interpretation of medical research that s/he may or may not be qualified to interpret.

Judging from this comment by a medical professional who has actually read the journal article, it sounds like there is more to the story.

"Bloodless" surgery is of course rarely completely "bloodless", at least according to the WT standards of a generation ago.

"Bloodless" surgery can include cell salvage, hemodilution, administration of EPO, etc., all of which was unequivocally banned for JWs 30+ years ago.

"Bloodless" surgery is indeed wonderful, and likely a better option, when the procedure can be scheduled in advance and allows for such an option. Of course, in cases of severe trauma and/or high blood loss, transfusions of plasma and/or red cells are still the best, perhaps only, treatment that has even a chance of success.

Many surgerys that in the pasr cause lots of bleeding are now, with modern technology, far less invasive with far less bleeding.

The use of lazers for example, that allow the surgeon to cut and cauterize, have decreased to need for blood tremedously.

I think that in the past, many hospitals were a tad to liberal in the use of blood, the fact that there are alternatives is NOT a bad thing.

Though I always have concerns when I read an article in favour of a procedure that is more "cost effective".

I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that it is better not to use someone elses blood if possable, but as some other posters have said, there are times that it has to be used or the person would certainly die. The borg I am sure will put there own spin on this, but the fact remains that they would still let someone die rather than breaking their own man made rules  regarding blood.

I expect a Dr. to do whatever is safest and will save my life.

If doing it without blood is safer, then lets do it that way.

If I'm laying on the table bleeding out, hell yeah, hook me up for some blood!

I just had it out with someone about this.  There are many uses for blood.  But in reality, this is a spectrum question, not a black or white one.  I ask JW's

On a scale of 1-10 where

1 = Medical blood use is pagan midieval quackery.

5 = Medical blood use is sometimes necessary but never risk free and should be considered carefully with other medical options.

10 = Medical blood use is a miraculous panacea...

Where do people stand?

I think most JW's are between 1-3.

I think most doctors are between 5-7.

I think anyone between 3-8 could be reasonable moderates.  I myself would probably be at about a 6.  It's important to distinguish between emergency and surgical uses of blood. 

You must consider how many people die from either no treatment or substitute treatment.  Most such studies do not adequately address this, particularly emergency blood usage.  This is because we don't just let someone almost bleed to death when we have the chance to use a - sometimes risky - solution.

I just had it out with someone about this.  There are many uses for blood.  But in reality, this is a spectrum question, not a black or white one.  I ask JW's

On a scale of 1-10 where

1 = Medical blood use is pagan midieval quackery.

5 = Medical blood use is sometimes necessary but never risk free and should be considered carefully with other medical options.

10 = Medical blood use is a miraculous panacea...

Where do people stand?

I think most JW's are between 1-3.

I think most doctors are between 5-7.

I think anyone between 3-8 could be reasonable moderates.  I myself would probably be at about a 6.  It's important to distinguish between emergency and surgical uses of blood. 

You must consider how many people die from either no treatment or substitute treatment.  Most such studies do not adequately address this, particularly emergency blood usage.  This is because we don't just let someone almost bleed to death when we have the chance to use a - sometimes risky - solution.

To my mind that is fine....I am certainly not advocating the use of blood just because the dubs ban it.

I have many reservations about accepting it and would certainly welcome bloodless surgery, BUT the point of issue with J W is the total ban even if you have lost so much blood that your life is threatened.

I am sure that there is not one doctor whose views were quoted in the article who would decline to use it if the patient was "bleeding out"

It is always going to be preferrable to use the surgical methodologies which are least invasive, and reduce blood loss. These techniques have been developed over a number of decades by a number of pioneering surgeons, sometimes in response to patient request (including witnesses) but also due to the increasing cost of blood collection, storage and processing. JW's will benefit from these practices and procedures but they were not, as some claim, the reason why they were developed and exist.

"Bloodless" surgery is really just high-tech surgery incorporating blood components.

It's especially ironic that the JWs need to cite recent advances in medical technology in order to justify their draconian blood policy. First, it's strikingly hypocritical, since they do not value science and the systems of thought that produce such knowledge. Second, advances in technology and medicine should have nothing to do with justifying "Bible-based" doctrine, since God's Word is infallible and timeless, right?

Bloodless" surgery is of course rarely completely "bloodless"

True. Which is why many hospitals call their programs "transfusion-free medicine" as opposed to the more inaccurate "bloodless surgery."

This is nothing new, bloodless surgery has been advocated long before JWs banned blood transfusions. Wikipedia credits Adolf Lorenz (1854 - February 12, 1946) with popularising the term bloodless surgery. 

I am certain the Watchtower will jump on this article as vindication of their stance, which will be a total misrepresentation of the facts. As mentioned by others, it is not a black and white issue. The issue is that a person should have a choice when surgery demands blood for survival.

A couple of comments in the article that show it is not black and white:

• "blood transfusions for stable cardiac-surgery patients increased their risk of death." 
• " in most cases the volume of blood can be maintained by alternative fluids "

As others have also stated, bloodless surgery actually includes blood products.

Contemporary usage of "bloodless surgery" refers to both invasive and noninvasive medical techniques and protocols. The term is somewhat confusing.^[6] The expression does not mean surgery that makes no use of blood or blood transfusion. Rather, it refers to surgery performed without transfusion of allogeneic blood.^[7][8] Champions of bloodless surgery do, however, transfuse products made from allogeneic blood and they also make use of predonated blood for autologous transfusion.^[9] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery

On a scale of 1-10

Rate me at 7 = Blood should be used where medically appropriate, but not otherwise. Transfusions have low but not negligible risk, and should be considered carefully with other medical options.

Paraphrasing the linked article from rebel8's post, transfusions are not appropriate for patients who don't need them.

--GLT (a proud member of the Blood Donor Class)

As medical procedures advance "bloodless" surgery would come about as a consequence of such advancement.
But it will not be totally "bloodless" as has been pointed out, fractions etc would still be used if needed.

The Watchtower will probably mention this article about "bloodless" surgery as justifiying their stance on blood.

But just because the medical side are doing this, does not support the WT teaching on blood.

The WT say their teaching is based on the Bible. That Jehovah has forbidden the use of blood transfusions.

Even if the use of blood was the safest form of medical treatment with absolutely no risk. (Though no medical procedure is without risk)

The Watchtower would still have to prove by scripture alone, that the use of blood as a medical treatment was forbidden.

Would they then be able to do so,  without pointing to any medical problems using blood might cause, to try and back that teaching.

Could they rely totally on what scripture says about blood?

^ No.  What I have on that is on pp.11-42 at the next link.
  http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn11.htm