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(Acts 15:28,29) & for health reasons ESPECIALLY by religiously predjudiced people?

....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
**HELLO out there in religious land--is there anybody out there using some reasoning factors, or is the unpopularity of our stand too , too, much to bear--MY MY!

**WHAT IS being recommended out there in MEDICAL LAND as to the BENEFIT/RISK FACTOR?

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

With good reason, medical personnel have been advised: “It is necessary to REEVALUATE (my caps)as well the risk part of the benefit/risk relationship for blood transfusion and to seek alternatives.” (Italics ours.)—Perioperative Red Cell Transfusion, National Institutes of Health conference, June 27-29, 1988.

--DO YOU prefer playing RUSSIAN ROULETTE with 3 of the 6 chambers in the "blood transfusion gun" that may someday reach 5 of the 6!

**I guess our religious community really fit this bill (1 Corinthians 15:32) “. . ., “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”. . .”
**NO MATTER WHAT?

***Quoting isofblue's answer, on MORE complications of blood transfusion dangers

"I thought it was interesting to note, according to TIME magazine,(12/31/007) 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...

***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 1

--AS FAR AS OUR DARING to say we are right!
>>We give full credit to the author of the Bible, Jehovah God for his wisdom in providing mankind direction!
>>WE JUST choose to side with his Divine mandate:

Acts 15:19,20,28,29 (NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION)
"19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God
>>20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood...
....28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements...
>>29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to AVOID THESE THINGS. Farewell."

*** jv chap. 13 p. 186 Recognized by Our Conduct ***

>>In 1987 the French medical daily Le Quotidien du Médecin stated: “MAYBE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARE RIGHT (my caps)in refusing the use of blood products, for it is true that an important number of pathogenic agents can be transmitted by transfused blood.”

***BLOODLESS SURGERY gaining popularity MSNBC NEWS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466831/from/ET/

**ENGLEWOOD HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER
---"Bloodless Medicine & Surgery"
http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medservices.cfm?pageid=40&bc=0

**"UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM"
"Bloodless Medicine"
http://www.pennhealth.com/health_info/bloodless/

Answer 2

Why is it Ok for Witnesses to have Blood transfusions in other countries where the government put the pressure on....What are you going to do when they change their stance on this issue like they have many times in the past?


Been around long enough to remember them saying that Organ transplants were Cannibalism, THA?

Answer 3

People deny so many things that Jehovah's Witnesses have published for years.

We can't have anything that might even imply that the JWs have been right all along, now can we?

Answer 4

well lets do a little risk management
a) die from blood loss
b) get a blood transfusion and possibly risk getting the wrong kind of blood
Well i die anyway from a), so why not try b)?

Answer 5

Hundreds of thousands of men were saved on the battlefields of WWII because of blood transfusions. Many of us would not be alive today if it were not for these transfusions. Everyday a blood transfusion saves hundreds of lives around the world.

.12% of the blood supply is tainted, meaning that less than 1% of blood transfusions lead to an infectious disease. You have a better chance of getting hit by a car crossing the road. Should we all stop crossing the road too?....

Answer 6

Warnings on the dangers of blood transfusions should not be ignored. If they should be not headed, it's certainly not because of JW's being proven correct (who cares about JWs?! I mean, seriously). When weighing the risks and benefits involved, there are plenty cases when the benefits far, far outweigh the possible risks. If a person is bleeding to the death and dying, the possibility of transmitting some desease does not seem like a priority.

Answer 7

There is a risk of contamination if you accept it. There is a certainty in many cases that you will die without it. What is your point? There is a risk in any medical procedure. All medications have side effects. That is why you don't get them unless you need them. JW don't reject it as being medically unsafe. They reject it as cannibalism. You've made no point here but to make yourself look like a goober.

Answer 8

What is even more dangerous dear is when because of religious superstitions and delusions, uneducated people prefer to let their children or relatives die instead of getting proper medical treatment that could save their lives...

Answer 9

Everything in life comes with a certain level of danger, if we caved to all of it and hid beneath a rock we would never advance as a society. One has to the weigh the risks against not going the route and that should be made on an individual basis. Any doctor worth his/her salt will inform one of all risks involved.

Answer 10

Yes. Ignore them and save a life. Or don't get it and die like a f......head...

Answer 11

You do what you like honey.

I'll be sane and get blood transfusions.