Is Biden To Blame For Harris's Defeat?
News0 min ago
Has the medical profession at last woke up to the dangers of blood transfusion? - Acts 15: 20, 29
75 Answers
This is a trailer for a major new TV documentary scheduled
for release in the spring of 2012 called: Media URL: http://youtu.be/h1rCBcJut9c
Description:
for release in the spring of 2012 called: Media URL: http://youtu.be/h1rCBcJut9c
Description:
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mymom. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Mymom, the very minimal issues of possible complicaitons following a blood transfusion could never negate the almost indescribeable amount of good they have done and lives they have saved. Please re-evaluate your religious beliefs, which although I am sure are sincere, are really very dangerous, not just to yourself but to the people you appear to be trying to convert. You surely wouldn't want someone's death on your hands would you?
There is a lot of garbled opinions on this site regarding religion. Everybody has something to say, but, will criticize without having an idea of what one's actually talking about. Very narrow minded. (Where do you get your sources for your comments people?)
Right, regarding the JW's 'Leviticus 17:11' is one of the reasons "Blood Transfusions" are not allowed, there are many more verses from the bible I could point to, but this is the/a main one. And quite frankly the JW's using the bible 'literally' as a way to live in our world today is sheer lunacy.... There is a complete Eden and world of paradise outside the confined walls of the bible.
Blood Transfusions: a far safer alternative; 'Plasma volume expanders' severally reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc. etc. The body has a reserve for severe blood loss, about 50% of our blood is water on top of red and white blood cells (which our own body replaces) and all that is needed is the fluid needs 'topping up', our own body controls this without the need of another man's blood.
Upon my accident (being run over in Portugal 2005) and needing hospital from losing a lot of blood I did not have any ID on me regarding what blood type I was. Plasma volume expanders were used as the surgeons couldn't just pump me full of a wrong blood type. I have it written down from Faro hospital before being privately (and expensively!) flown back to England Ipswich hospital in which, my consultant said they've done a fantastic job picking that option. Without it I could of died.
Right, regarding the JW's 'Leviticus 17:11' is one of the reasons "Blood Transfusions" are not allowed, there are many more verses from the bible I could point to, but this is the/a main one. And quite frankly the JW's using the bible 'literally' as a way to live in our world today is sheer lunacy.... There is a complete Eden and world of paradise outside the confined walls of the bible.
Blood Transfusions: a far safer alternative; 'Plasma volume expanders' severally reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc. etc. The body has a reserve for severe blood loss, about 50% of our blood is water on top of red and white blood cells (which our own body replaces) and all that is needed is the fluid needs 'topping up', our own body controls this without the need of another man's blood.
Upon my accident (being run over in Portugal 2005) and needing hospital from losing a lot of blood I did not have any ID on me regarding what blood type I was. Plasma volume expanders were used as the surgeons couldn't just pump me full of a wrong blood type. I have it written down from Faro hospital before being privately (and expensively!) flown back to England Ipswich hospital in which, my consultant said they've done a fantastic job picking that option. Without it I could of died.
Only up to a point tweaker.
For mild to moderate blood loss, plasma expanders suffice, but severe (typically over 30% of circulating blood volume) requires red cell transfusion.
To reply to the OP "Are doctors.."
No, because they have always been aware of the risks. That's why, in the UK at any rate we have
http://www.shotuk.org/home/
http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/SaBTO/index.htm
To get the risks into perspective, the risk of contracting malaria from a blood transfusion is vanishingly small in this country.
Risk of contracting HIV = 1 in 4/5 million
Risk of contracting Hepatitis C = 1 in 82 million
Risks of contracting Hepatitis B = 1 in 670,000
For mild to moderate blood loss, plasma expanders suffice, but severe (typically over 30% of circulating blood volume) requires red cell transfusion.
To reply to the OP "Are doctors.."
No, because they have always been aware of the risks. That's why, in the UK at any rate we have
http://www.shotuk.org/home/
http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/SaBTO/index.htm
To get the risks into perspective, the risk of contracting malaria from a blood transfusion is vanishingly small in this country.
Risk of contracting HIV = 1 in 4/5 million
Risk of contracting Hepatitis C = 1 in 82 million
Risks of contracting Hepatitis B = 1 in 670,000
@TWEAKER -its interesting what you said about having no id on you regarding blood group - who does? its not on the driving license or passport - I only know mine cos its rhesus negative and was told cos i had to have a shot of something after childbirth -can't they do a quick test in casualty to get your bloodtype before transfusion -or does this type of test take a while...
It's not really necessary to know your blood group, or have a tag/evidence on you (unless you are one of those rare people who have uncommon blood group antibodies.)
Even were I to tell someone in A&E what my blood group was, medicolegally the hospital has to recheck it before crossmatching blood for me.
A quick blood group test can be done in minutes.
In an emergency O Negative blood is given while waiting for group compatible blood.
Even were I to tell someone in A&E what my blood group was, medicolegally the hospital has to recheck it before crossmatching blood for me.
A quick blood group test can be done in minutes.
In an emergency O Negative blood is given while waiting for group compatible blood.
It does take a little while to determine blood type - if a patient in a hospital situation were to need a blood transfusion in an emergency, and if the time taken to process the recipient's blood would cause a detrimental delay, O Negative blood can be issued.
O negative is known as 'universal donor' blood group - with a tiny number of very rare exceptions, anyone can safely receive an O negative donation if their own correct blood group is not yet known.
Very good wiki page on blood groups :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type
O negative is known as 'universal donor' blood group - with a tiny number of very rare exceptions, anyone can safely receive an O negative donation if their own correct blood group is not yet known.
Very good wiki page on blood groups :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type
Hi Slaney, how are you today?
I don't know a great deal about PVE's in this country or Portugal for that matter, just a certain variant was used on me and saved me. Which of course I was more than greatful for!
Kristal,
My no ID on me at the time, no passport or medical evidence. I had a passport, left at my friends house in Portugal. We went out for a bite to eat and drink, and then I was run over. Not having insurance or E1.11 forms on me I was not listed say, especially not in a foreign country.
I don't know a great deal about PVE's in this country or Portugal for that matter, just a certain variant was used on me and saved me. Which of course I was more than greatful for!
Kristal,
My no ID on me at the time, no passport or medical evidence. I had a passport, left at my friends house in Portugal. We went out for a bite to eat and drink, and then I was run over. Not having insurance or E1.11 forms on me I was not listed say, especially not in a foreign country.
Hi Slaney, 'full grumpy old woman mode! '
That I did not know.
I do know that upon being hit, and put into a 'coma'? I was on life support for a week. In this time the Portuguese doctors phoned my mother back in the UK, she rushed over and was told upon me bleeding on the brain and blood loss if I didn't make any signs of recovery within 24hrs the machine would be switched off. Within that 24 hour period I made a recovery, I don't know at what time or when the PVE was used but it bought me back, may-be my mother bought the details along? Although she is hasty to talk about events it upsets her. One thing I am 100% on is that it was PVE and not a transfusion...
That I did not know.
I do know that upon being hit, and put into a 'coma'? I was on life support for a week. In this time the Portuguese doctors phoned my mother back in the UK, she rushed over and was told upon me bleeding on the brain and blood loss if I didn't make any signs of recovery within 24hrs the machine would be switched off. Within that 24 hour period I made a recovery, I don't know at what time or when the PVE was used but it bought me back, may-be my mother bought the details along? Although she is hasty to talk about events it upsets her. One thing I am 100% on is that it was PVE and not a transfusion...
Hi Slaney,
For my mother it was with her mother (my grandmother) passing away earlier that year.
I was only told much later by my mother I had bleeding on the brain. So, mannitol saved me. Cool. Mystery solved. Thanks.
I'm going to start a new thread regarding what Judas Iscariot actually betrayed? I already know a sound answer, I'd like to see what answers people will come up with?
For my mother it was with her mother (my grandmother) passing away earlier that year.
I was only told much later by my mother I had bleeding on the brain. So, mannitol saved me. Cool. Mystery solved. Thanks.
I'm going to start a new thread regarding what Judas Iscariot actually betrayed? I already know a sound answer, I'd like to see what answers people will come up with?
Others have already made the point. We have been exploring the life -saving possibilities of blood transfusions for a long time now, and we have learnt a lot about the risks of blood transfusions over that period.
Its all about relative risk. Use of blood transfusion has meant that procedures and treatment protocols are available that otherwise could not be used without transfusion support. The awareness of risk is always present, and is used when measuring best practice. Blood use for elective surgery is being driven down and down, with the use of intra-operative cell salvage, laparoscopic surgery and blood substitutes, such as plasma volume expanders and IV fluids becoming every more the norm.
The JW rejection of blood transfusion seems to be entirely on religious grounds, and, to me at least, seems to be based upon a basic misconception, one brought about by the inability of literalist interpreters of the bible to move with the times and the changing and advancing technology. Its yet another reason to be wary of such religions.Through such ridiculous views, they tied themselves into legal knots over the definition of what constituted a blood product or not, some happy to accept products derived from blood, such as factor 8 for the treatment of haemophilia, or anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of Haemolytic Disease of the Newborn - Others within the same church would not accept such compromises.
Actually though, due to the law of unintended consequences, JW intrasigence over blood transfusions has actually helped to drive medical practice towards reducing the amounts of blood used in surgical procedures and in the treatment of anaemia, as well as proving a spur towards the development of blood substitutes, and synthetic blood. Thats not to say that such research would not have been done anyway - the risks of an incompatible transfusion reaction or the transmission of a blood borne virus are very well understood - but it probably helped to accelerate such research.
Its all about relative risk. Use of blood transfusion has meant that procedures and treatment protocols are available that otherwise could not be used without transfusion support. The awareness of risk is always present, and is used when measuring best practice. Blood use for elective surgery is being driven down and down, with the use of intra-operative cell salvage, laparoscopic surgery and blood substitutes, such as plasma volume expanders and IV fluids becoming every more the norm.
The JW rejection of blood transfusion seems to be entirely on religious grounds, and, to me at least, seems to be based upon a basic misconception, one brought about by the inability of literalist interpreters of the bible to move with the times and the changing and advancing technology. Its yet another reason to be wary of such religions.Through such ridiculous views, they tied themselves into legal knots over the definition of what constituted a blood product or not, some happy to accept products derived from blood, such as factor 8 for the treatment of haemophilia, or anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of Haemolytic Disease of the Newborn - Others within the same church would not accept such compromises.
Actually though, due to the law of unintended consequences, JW intrasigence over blood transfusions has actually helped to drive medical practice towards reducing the amounts of blood used in surgical procedures and in the treatment of anaemia, as well as proving a spur towards the development of blood substitutes, and synthetic blood. Thats not to say that such research would not have been done anyway - the risks of an incompatible transfusion reaction or the transmission of a blood borne virus are very well understood - but it probably helped to accelerate such research.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Jobs & Education21 mins ago
News21 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.