English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Some say that because of AIDS and hepatitis it would be foolish for anyone to take a blood transfussion?

2006-09-06 10:59:16 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health Diseases & Conditions Infectious Diseases

3 answers

Here is some info:

Recently, Drs. L. T. Goodnough and J. M. Shuck noted: “The medical community has long been aware that while the blood supply is as safe as we know how to make it, blood transfusion has always carried a risk. The most frequent complication of blood transfusion continues to be non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANBH); other potential complications include hepatitis B, alloimmunization, transfusion reaction, immunologic suppression, and iron overload.” Estimating ‘conservatively’ just one of those serious dangers, the report added: “It is anticipated that approximately 40,000 people [in the United States alone] will develop NANBH yearly and that up to 10% of these will develop cirrhosis and/or hepatoma [liver cancer].”—The American Journal of Surgery, June 1990.

As the risk of contracting disease from transfused blood has become more widely known, people are reconsidering their view of transfusions. For example, after the pope was shot in 1981, he was treated at a hospital and released. Later he had to go back for two months, and his condition was so grave that it seemed he might have to retire as an invalid. Why? He got a cytomegalovirus infection from blood given him. Some may wonder, ‘If blood given even to the pope is unsafe, what about transfusions given to us average people?’

‘But can’t they screen blood for diseases?’ someone might ask. Well, consider as an example screening for hepatitis B. Patient Care (February 28, 1990) pointed out: “The incidence of posttransfusion hepatitis declined following the universal screening of blood for [it], but 5-10% of posttransfusion hepatitis cases are still caused by hepatitis B.”

The fallibility of such testing is also seen with another blood-borne risk—AIDS. The AIDS pandemic has, with a vengeance, awakened people to the danger of infected blood. Granted, there are now tests to screen blood for evidence of the virus. However, blood is not screened in all places, and it seems that people may carry the AIDS virus in their blood for years without its being detectable by current tests. So patients can get AIDS—have got AIDS—from blood that was screened and passed!

Drs. Goodnough and Shuck also mentioned “immunologic suppression.” Yes, evidence mounts that even properly cross-matched blood can damage a patient’s immune system, opening the door to cancer and death. Thus, a Canadian study of “patients with head and neck cancer showed that those who received a blood transfusion during removal of [a] tumor experienced a significant decrease in immune status afterwards.” (The Medical Post, July 10, 1990) Doctors at the University of Southern California had reported: “The recurrence rate for all cancers of the larynx was 14% for those who did not receive blood and 65% for those who did. For cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, and nose or sinus, the recurrence rate was 31% without transfusions and 71% with transfusions.” (Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, March 1989) Suppressed immunity seems also to underlie the fact that those given blood during surgery are more likely to develop infections

Each year in the United States alone, more than 11,000,000 units of red cells are transfused into 3,000,000 patients. In view of that large number, one would assume that there is a strict standard among physicians when it comes to administering blood. Yet, The New England Journal of Medicine notes that there is surprisingly little data “to guide decisions about transfusions.” Indeed, there is a wide variation in practice, not only regarding precisely what is transfused and how much but also regarding whether a transfusion is administered at all. “Transfusion depends on the doctor, not on the patient,” says the medical journal Acta Anæsthesiologica Belgica. Considering the above, it is hardly surprising that a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that “an estimated 66 percent of transfusions are administered inappropriately.”

2006-09-06 11:16:37 · answer #1 · answered by Frax 4 · 1 0

dangers of catching something from a transfusion are pretty much zero. the blood is tested so extensively.. your biggest concern would be an allergic type reaction..like a rash or rejection.. but the drs give benedryl for that. i know this because my daughter had leukemia and had to have many transfusions..and we had to find and screen lots of donors. the screening you need to go through before you donate is very in depth. so transfusions are very safe.

2006-09-06 18:04:28 · answer #2 · answered by KELLY H 3 · 1 1

Those are minimal dangers to worry about, the biggest worry is reacting to the anti-bodies in the blood you are getting. That can cause instant death.

2006-09-07 01:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by Know it all 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers