SHOULD WARNINGS on the dangers of BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS like the following be ignored BECAUSE.....?

Question

....JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are being proved correct on their stand for the sanctity of blood & for health reasons.?

....The Boston Globe Magazine reports that blood specialist Dr. Charles Huggins admits that blood “must be considered unavoidably non-safe.” He describes blood as “the MOST DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE (my caps) we use in medicine.” Since early 1989 the number of infectious diseases blood banks typically test for has increased to five (HTLV-I, associated with adult T-cell leukemia, syphilis, hepatitis B, AIDS, and hepatitis C). However, according to AMERICAN RED CROSS authority S. Gerald Sandler, “it seems that it’s only a matter of time until we find another rare disease spread by blood transfusion"

UPDATE #1
*** g95 6/8 p. 21 Canada’s “Tainted Blood” Inquiry ***
The Globe and Mail, it is estimated that “as many as 1,000 Canadians a year die of hepatitis C.” The newspaper adds that “up to half of them may have contracted the disease from blood transfusions.”....
.....Justice Krever listened intently to more than a hundred Canadians whose lives have been shattered by HIV and other tragedies resulting from tainted blood. Medical experts have testified that it is impossible to make the blood supply totally safe from disease transmission and other dangers. They have admitted serious risks and misuse associated with blood. Dr. J. Brian McSheffrey, medical director of a regional blood transfusion service, testified that he draws attention to the problem by saying in lectures: “If you have to give a transfusion, you’ve either failed in diagnosis or failed in therapy.”

**PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETE , with 3 of the 6 chambers in the barrel is getting to be the norm with blood transfusion if not 5 of the 6 , please note:

*** hb p. 19 You Have the Right to Choose ***

Dr. Charles Huggins, who is the director of transfusion service at the large Massachusetts General Hospital, made this very clear: “Blood has never been safer. But it must be considered unavoidably non-safe. It is the MOST DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE ( my caps)we use in medicine.”—The Boston Globe Magazine, February 4, 1990.

Answer 1

>>THE risk factor is getting worse as more diseases are being surfaced, those little unseen bugs can really do a job on every pint of blood in existence:

*** g00 1/8 p. 8 The Growing Demand for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery

>>The general public too is becoming aware of the dangers of transfusions. Indeed, a 1996 poll revealed that 89 percent of Canadians would prefer an alternative to donated blood. “Not all patients will refuse homologous transfusions as do Jehovah’s Witnesses,” states the Journal of Vascular Surgery.
>>“Nonetheless, the risks of disease transmission and immunomodulation offer clear evidence that we must find alternatives for all of our patients.”

*** g96 2/8 p. 29 Watching the World

“Blessed Are Jehovah’s Witnesses”
>>As in many other countries, a blood scandal has erupted in Italy. It is claimed that thousands of liters of blood were distributed to transfusion centers without adequate screening or without proper safety precautions being taken, thereby exposing thousands of people to the risk of contracting illnesses such as AIDS and hepatitis.
>>Commenting on the shocking situation that put profits above personal health, Luigi Pintor, editor of the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto, began his article with these words: “Blessed are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who . . . refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. As they read the newspapers these days, they will be the only ones who will not have to worry about what is going on . . . in the blood industries and clinics that sell and administer blood, plasma, and related derivatives to their fellowmen.”

*** g95 7/22 p. 29 Watching the World
>>Blood—A Dangerous “Drug”
“Could it be that the Jehovah’s Witnesses ARE RIGHT (my caps) in refusing blood transfusions?” asks England’s Sunday Telegraph. Current transfusion scares involve blood contaminated by hepatitis C and the AIDS virus. “But infection is only one of a number of dangers that have been described in professional journals,” says the Telegraph.
>>“Studies such as the one that estimated the chances of an adverse reaction to a transfusion as high as 20 per cent are little known to the public. Equally unfamiliar are the studies that have found that having a transfusion is the best predictor of making a poor recovery after abdominal or colon operations.”
>>Studies also show that a high percentage of blood transfusions are given unnecessarily and that transfusion practices vary widely and are based more on habit than on scientific data. Calling blood “a powerful drug” with which “most surgeons are far too cavalier,” Tom Lennard, consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, commented: “If blood was a new drug IT WOULDN'T (my caps) receive a product licence.”

SIDING WITH a popular method of treatment rather than safe disease control by refusing blood is a folly that will come back on people!

For indeed as this stand by the Witnesses is verified in the Bible(Acts 15:19.20,28,29)-- this true warning applies :

(Galatians 6:7) “7 Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap;”
>>And the greater consequences of contributing to pandemic affect may also be reaped:
(Hosea 8:7) “. . .“For it is wind that they keep sowing, and a storm wind is what they will reap. . . .”

Answer 2

Why is it ok for Witnesses to have Blood transfusions in different worldwide places the place the government placed the strain on....What are you going to do whilst they alter their stance in this concern like they have many cases interior the previous? Been around long sufficient to bear in suggestions them asserting that Organ transplants have been Cannibalism, THA?

Answer 3

I thought it was interesting to note, according to TIME magazine, studies have shown a disturbing spike in heart attacks--as much as 25%--and even deaths in patients who have received blood, usually within a month after the transfusion.

They think it may be because a unit of blood loses up to 70% of its nitric oxide (which is responsible for helping red blood cells carry oxygen to tissues and for propping open tiny vessels) within hours of leaving the body. By the time the blood reaches its "use by" expiration date, 42 days later, the gas is almost nonexistent.
Since the blood loses it's ability to carry oxygen, what benefit is it really? Is it simply "fluid" ?

Here is a link to the article in TIME magazine just in case someone hasn't read it yet.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670523,00.html

Answer 4

One of my children received a transfusion a few days after birth.
Thank God for all who donate.
She is a healthy 17 yr old now.
I would not just sit there and watch her die.

Answer 5

A blood transfusion is given to save the patient's life so it's Hobson's choice.
Do I have it & risk a terminal disease? Or do I refuse it & die anyway?
I for one, would be more than willing to take the chance.

Answer 6

Of course, blood transfusions have risks. All procedures do. But in many surgeries and illnesses, the risk of NOT receiving a transfusion far outweighs the risk of getting a blood-borne illness.

Answer 7

This question is alarmist. Blood transfusions are not a treatment given carelessly or needlessly, like antibiotics. In most cases, the refusal of a blood transfusion means death. Most people, Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others excluded, will accept the risk of disease over the certainty of death.

Tests of synthetic and thereby guaranteed disease-free blood have run into snags both medical and ethical. Right now, transfusions of real blood are the BEST WE CAN DO (my caps.)