New Scientist and Life Threatening Blood Transfusions

When you’re talking medicine with someone who doesn’t care for Jehovah’s Witnesses, you’ll find that blood transfusion is always linked with life-saving. There are no exceptions. The noun and adjective must never be separated. At least, not until recently.

For at long last, the link is starting to crumble. The correct coupling, still emerging, is life-threatening blood transfusions. Not among JW detractors, of course, who will still be chanting "life saving blood transfusions" as they are lowered into their graves. But among those who actually know anything, matters are changing fast.

It's the only conclusion you can reach upon reading the April 26, 2008 New Scientist magazine. Entitled An Act of Faith in the Operating Room, an article reviews study after study after study and concludes that for all but the most catastrophic cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help. Says Gavin Murphy, a cardiac surgion at the Bristol Heart Institute in the UK: “There is virtually no high-quality study in surgery, or intensive or acute care - outside of when you are bleeding to death - that shows that blood transfusion is beneficial, and many that show it is bad for you.” Difficulties stem from blood‘s deteriorating in even brief storage, from its assault on the immune system, and from its impaired ability to deliver oxygen. (Risk of blood bourne diseases is no longer seen as a major factor) In short, the “act of faith” refered to is not withholding a blood transfusion. It is giving one.

One study cited is from the journal Circulation, vol 116, p 2544: "For almost 9000 patients who had heart surgery in the UK between 1996 and 2003, receiving a red cell transfusion was associated with three times the risk of dying in the following year and an almost six fold risk of dying within 30 days of surgery compared with not receiving one. Transfusions were also associated with more infections and higher incidences of stroke, heart attack and kidney failure - complications usually linked to a lack of oxygen in body tissues."

 

............................................................

 

Once before I ventured into the blogosphere here, here, hereand herewith similar thoughts and I count myself lucky to have escaped with my life:

“You are welcome to your belief that blood is a dangerous substance that God wants you to avoid,” said Calli. “But please, don't claim that you are doing so out of reason.”

“In the USA we have the inalienable right to be idiots, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else," instructed Chemgeek.

From Student B:   “Refusing a life saving blood transfusion (which hasn't even any side effects) is clearly insane if the refusal is just because of the blood transfusion itself. “

Greg:  Why is this crazy religion not a form of mental incompetence?

Justin:  My take on the matter is that ultimately anyone who subscribes to the no-blood doctrine has been brainwashed, and is not fit to make decisions for themselves on this basis.

And you should have heard them when I mentioned Dr. Bruce Speiss. They went positively apoplectic when he dared to use the R-word: "So it's just largely been a belief system-- almost a religion, if you will-- that if you give a unit of blood, patients will get better" Close to crank-dom, they said! Can't the idiot tell correlation from causation? Isn’t he the fellow selling cherry Kool-Aid as a blood substitute? I bet he’s a Jehovah Witness fruitcake like you. And check out his “study.” Only seven persons! Probably all his buddies. And didn't he buy his medical degree online?

But now it turns out that everything Dr. Speiss said was correct…..yes, even the religion part. Says New Scientist: “At first glance it seems astonishing that a technique used so widely for so long could be doing such harm. Yet many surgeons have proved reluctant to submit their methods to systematic study…….[Their] assumptions went untested for the better part of a century” (italics mine)

And you should have seen these guys carry on when I suggested that the medical community would one day owe a debt to Jehovah’s Witnesses for setting them on the right track, urging the development of bloodless medicine. Scientists invented bloodless medicine all by themselves, they shrieked, guided only by their Scientific Method…..climbing ever upward and onward….fearlessly pushing the bounds of human knowledge….all to the glorification of Science and Truth….and so forth. They don’t give two hoots about your pissy little religion!!

But in fact, some of them do. “[Bloodless surgery] was originally developed to enable Jehovah’s Witnesses, who shun transfusions, to undergo major surgery“ states the article and then considers some of its advantages. Indeed, New Scientist opens with scripture: “'For the life of the flesh is in the blood. No soul of you shall eat blood.’ So says the Bible’s book of Leviticus, and it is for this reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses shun blood transfusions” Perhaps, the magazine suggests, all persons should be treated as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

.............................................

Now, I don't want to gloat over this development…. I really don't…. Really and truly…. Honestly.

On the other hand.....

C'mon!….you would too if you were in my shoes! For decades, we Witnesses were the ignorant slaves of superstition. Transfusion proponents, on the other hand, were the all-wise devotees of modern medical science. What right had we to not to do as we were told? I’ve known three persons in my lifetime who were told, point blank and without the slightest empathy, that they would die if they did not consent to a blood transfusion. None of these three consented. None died. Jehovah's Witnesses don't smoke, they don't do drugs, they don't drink to excess - all factors whose health-risks far outweigh anything having to do with transfusions. They are entirely cooperative with all aspects of medical care, barring only one. If you're not fixated on just that one item, you couldn't ask for better patients.

These findings, so new to the medical establishment, are not new to us. We’ve been accumulating them for years, trying to share them with doctors, usually being rebuffed, all the while with the media whipping folks into near hysteria. All we ever wanted was that our own religious conscience be respected, that medical people would not huff it's my way or the highway! and run roughshod over our stand. Treat it as an allergy ruling out the favored treatment, if you must, and do the best you can under those circumstances. Decades ago Jehovah’s Witnesses formed Hospital Information Service committees from local volunteers and sent them into medical establishments to keep them informed on the latest advances in bloodless medicine. Believe me, it was not easy. Constantly we had to contend with “and what medical school did you get your degree from?” But it has paid off. Here and there, fearless doctors have acknowledged our point of view, and have worked to accommodate it. We are most grateful to these medical pioneers, who usually had to withstand much pressure from their own peers.

Did the New Scientist article declare blood transfusions inadvisable in all circumstances? No. It is still thought to be the best option in cases of severe anemia and catastrophic blood loss. But I suspect these views, too, will change. After all, if blood threatens harm to a healthy person, can it really be the treatment of choice for a critically ill one? Surely something from the field of bloodless medicine will emerge as superior, if it hasn’t already.

Incidentally, blood banks apparently plan no changes at present. "If all blood had to be used within two weeks, it would cause a major inventory problem," says James Isbister, an adviser to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. Right. Just like that time I bought a basket of spoiled fruit and spent the week in the bathroom with diarrhea. I wasn’t upset. I realized it was my duty to grin and bear it. I didn’t want to screw up their inventory.

 

[EDIT: 3/13/10] Now the U.S Army is being trained in the bloodless techniques first developed to serve Jehovah's Witnesses. The new training will save both lives and money, says a spokesman. Thanks to Lekozza for latching onto this item.

......................

More here

 

******  The bookstore

 

Comments

[vargas]

Very informative post. Gloat on!

I had to read it twice! As far as this comment is concerned in the article:"(Risk of blood bourne diseases is no longer seen as a major factor)".

-Perhaps some do view it as a minor factor these days but I have to disagree vigorously when it comes to AIDS. People with HIV have a large window during which getting tested or giving blood the virus is undetectable. Some of these people, not knowing they have HIV give blood and this blood, even though tested, because of the long incubation period of the HIV virus, is contaminated. Thus, there are people out there who were given blood transfusions who have HIV and don't know it.

BTW, the five people you quoted might need to muzzle their mouths and do a little research. The ignorance displayed in those comments is amazing. They sound a lot like "Rational" Response Squad knuckleheads.

[Romulus Crowe]

I've always believed science should be absolutely and unashamedly accountable. There should be no 'ego' in science, but there is. Too much.

The blood transfusion issue is one of several important issues where it wasn't held to account. This was always taken as 'it must be true because the medics say so' and was never really tested.

Now it has been, and it shows the dangers of non-scientists following scientists as if we were all mini-Popes. We are not. Despite appearances, scientists are human and can make mistakes.

Those mistakes must be corrected by science itself, if science is to retain any credibility. It's a pity that some of them take so long to come to light.

Antibiotics are next in line. Hailed as a wonder-cure but responsible for some pretty bad stuff. Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccoccus aureas (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile are good starting points there.

Gloat away, Tom. You've earned it.

[Screech]

What's funny is I remember asking once about any studies about the effectiveness and safety of blood, ie: are there safer and more effective alternatives.

I've been curious what would happen if blood were put to the same approval methods as other medications. I guess we're starting to see those answers.

[rivalarrival]

Thank you, Tom, for your invite to post on this subject. I'll be cross-posting this over at TheJesusMyth.

[quote]...concludes that for all but the most catastrophic cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help.[/quote]

I want to point out that heterologous blood transfusions are typically performed only in the most catastrophic of cases, where the body's own blood is incapable (or becoming incapable) of supporting life. These cases include uncontrollable bleeding and leukemia.

The preferred method of transfusion during elective surgery is autologous - using the patient's own blood, collected in advance, to replace blood lost during the surgery. Obviously, this is not an option for emergent care.

[quote]For almost 9000 patients who had heart surgery in the UK between 1996 and 2003, receiving a red cell transfusion was associated with three times the risk of dying in the following year and an almost six fold risk of dying within 30 days of surgery compared with not receiving one. [/quote]

Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation. It is very likely that the people who needed a red cell transfusion were the same ones who had the riskiest surgeries. I would be interested in the mortality statistics of those patients that refuse blood after their doctor decides it is in their best interest to accept it.

[quote]Now, I don't want to gloat over this development…. I really don't…. Really and truly…. Honestly.[/quote]

There's nothing to gloat over. Your "experts" aren't saying what you seem to want them to say - that blood is bad. They are saying that blood should be considered a hail-mary play, administered only when it is the least risky of the available life saving options. Which is exactly when it is administered anyway.

In any event, why would you be gloating anyway? As one of your readers pointed out, science should not be ego driven.

[quote] "So it's just largely been a belief system-- almost a religion, if you will-- that if you give a unit of blood, patients will get better" [/quote]

When a patient is suffering from life-threatening blood loss or low hemoglobin, a patient WILL "get better" after receiving a properly administered unit of blood. Blood probably isn't going to cure a person's hemorrhoids, but it's not prescribed for that particular symptom anyway.

Let's run a couple thought experiments. I'm sure you could find data about the efficacy of blood transfusions in the following situations, and I'm also sure that you won't post it, because it directly contradicts what you are saying here.

Lets say that you, a non-smoking, non-drinking, healthy individual, get hit by a drunk driver, lacerate your femoral artery, and lose 70% of your blood volume in a matter of moments.

How about, an elevator accident? Chain saw? Industrial accident involving a large saw? Agricultural accident involving a combine? The common theme to these accidents is "You lose a LOT of blood".

What are the survival rates of persons who accept blood transfusions in these cases, and what are the survival rates of persons who do not?

After you show demonstrate that blood transfusion should be contraindicated for a person who has lost 70% of his blood volume, we can start talking about leukemia treatments. After that, if your numbers still point in that direction, you can tell me that blood transfusions are bad.

[quote]I've always believed science should be absolutely and unashamedly accountable. There should be no 'ego' in science, but there is. Too much.[/quote]

I whole-heartedly agree.ANY ego is too much, and this is the primary reason why I am arguing with Tom about this issue. It seems to me that Tom is primarily concerned about finding a specific type of data that agrees with his hypothesis, and ignoring anything that does not - the very accusations that are being leveled at the medical community also seem to apply in this community.

[quote]The blood transfusion issue is one of several important issues where it wasn't held to account. This was always taken as 'it must be true because the medics say so' and was never really tested.[/quote]

This is absolutely absurd. The effects of transfusions have been studied for nearly 200 years, and numerous advances have made blood transfusions today far safer than those of even a few years ago. Thousands of formal and informal studies have been conducted on millions of patients in the past 200 years. There are a few dozen studies on blood and transfusions open right now.

[quote]Those mistakes must be corrected by science itself, if science is to retain any credibility.[/quote]

Science does correct its mistakes - or more correctly, it learns to stop making them.

Instead of presuming that science has simply erred in this particular case, you could explore a significant portion of the studies conducted on transfusions, and not just the ones that lend credence to your own preconceived notions that blood=bad.

[quote]Antibiotics are next in line. Hailed as a wonder-cure but responsible for some pretty bad stuff. Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccoccus aureas (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile are good starting points there.[/quote]

There is a reason they were hailed as a wonder-cure. They cure bacterial infections in a matter of days, rather than weeks, or months. They literally save lives. MRSA is a bad bug, but so is tuberculosis.

[quote]What's funny is I remember asking once about any studies about the effectiveness and safety of blood, ie: are there safer and more effective alternatives.[/quote]

There are several alternatives to blood transfusions, each carries certain risks and certain benefits. To date, I have yet to see a study that concluded any of the O2 carrying alternatives were as safe, let alone safer, than red blood cells.

The benefits of most of these alternatives was that they could be stored at room temperature and could be readily employed earlier in the chain of care - by paramedics in the field, rather than doctors and nurses at the hospital. This particular benefit may outweigh the risks of these products, which appear, as yet, to be less helpful than real blood products.

To my knowledge, none of these alternatives have met with FDA approval yet, but several are in various trial stages.

[Romulus Crowe]

Perhaps I should mention that I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. In fact, I have no religion at all. I smoke, I drink, I use foul language - in fact I used a lot of it when a lab freezer broke on Sunday and thawed several years' worth of irreplaceable samples.

I'm a practising scientist.

So, to reply:

Instead of presuming that science has simply erred in this particular case, you could explore a significant portion of the studies conducted on transfusions, and not just the ones that lend credence to your own preconceived notions that blood=bad.

I have no preconceived notions. I've never had a blood transfusion and I hope never to have one - not for religious reasons, for scientific ones. I know something of blood-borne diseases and how hard some of them are to screen for. I know blood loses its efficacy in storage. I'd rather not have it - but because of facts, not belief.

Having said that, if it came to a choice of transfusion or certain death, I'd choose the risk of transfusion over the certainty of death.

That doesn't mean I'd insist anyone else made the same choice. If someone would rather die than have a transfusion, it's their choice to make, not mine.

Science makes mistakes and sometimes scientists cover them up. I've seen it, first hand. It's no good believing that all scientists are honest, impartial and disinterested observers. They aren't. They are human, and like any group of humans there are a few bad ones in there. Fortunately not many, but they do exist. Some are spotted straight away, some continue undetected for years. Mistakes happen. Outright fraud happens. I'm glad to say it's not common but it does happen, and not just in the high profile cases.

[antibiotics]They literally save lives. MRSA is a bad bug, but so is tuberculosis.

TB is now also available in new improved antibiotic-resistant form. TB will kill you now, it would have killed you before antibiotics. MRSA didn't exist before antibiotics. More correctly, it didn't exist before the widespread overuse of antibiotics. But that's a different argument so I'll drop it for now.

I don't always agree with Tom. I can't agree with the 6000 years thing and I can't agree with a lot of other things too. I visit here because, overall, I find Tom to be a reasonable person, someone I can have a discussion with without it turning nasty - which it too often does when science and religion meet.

I don't think Tom is a nut at all. Certainly not after the post I did on UFO's (in which I state that I've never seen one and don't study them at all). The real nuts descended within 24 hours on that one! The first seemed reaonable, the second is from another planet.

So I don't agree with Tom. That doesn't mean I have to talk down to him. I don't agree with many scientists either. That doesn't mean I'm going to snipe at their arguments and their beliefs.

Yes, science has saved many lives. Science has also taken many. Science is a tool, and like any tool it can be used both for building and for destruction. We aren't blameless.

I have no religion because I see no need for it. I see no need to villify those who do have religion. That does not advance science in any way that I can see.

My view is that people can choose their own way. I'm not going to tell anyone what to do with their lives, nor how they should choose to end them. It's not my business.

[rivalarrival]

I agree with you - I hope to never have a blood transfusion either. There are risks to any medical procedure; I would prefer to avoid *ANY* medical procedure, but when the risk of avoiding the procedure exceeds the risk of accepting it, of course I'm going to accept it.

That doesn't mean I'd insist anyone else made the same choice. If someone would rather die than have a transfusion, it's their choice to make, not mine.
I agree with you, up until the patient is coerced into the decision by someone who is disinterested in the patient's welfare.

Science makes mistakes and sometimes scientists cover them up Technically speaking, if they cover them up, they are not attempting to seek a true understanding of reality, and thus they are not scientists.

But that's a different argument so I'll drop it for now. Fair enough - we'll save that argument for another day.

I see no need to villify those who do have religion. That does not advance science in any way that I can see.

One should not have to villify religion in order to speak the truth. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. But, this is a separate issue, and I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue to discuss it.

My view is that people can choose their own way. I'm not going to tell anyone what to do with their lives, nor how they should choose to end them. It's not my business.

When you see someone boating downstream, do you warn them of the waterfall around the next bend? We can live our lives as if we are not responsible for any of the actions of the people around us, or we can be concerned for the general welfare of the people around us.

Similarly, when I see that certain practices can cause grave danger to the individuals who practice them, and the rationale they use to justify their actions is filled with misinformation, I cannot maintain a clear conscience without making a significant effort to challenge their justification.

[tom sheepandgoats]

Rivalarrival:

"They are saying that blood should be considered a hail-mary play, administered only when it is the least risky of the available life saving options. Which is exactly when it is administered anyway."

Not according to the New Scientist article:

"But now, far from being restricted to catastrophic bleeding, transfusions are routinely used as an optional treatment, most commonly for patients in intensive care or undergoing major surgery."

and

"Most general surgery patients who receive a transfusion get one or two units of blood. With careful surgery you can avoid losing that amount in the first place."

What is changing is the popular conception that blood transfusion is risk free and as beneficial as a band aid. As "Student B" put it: "Refusing a life saving blood transfusion (which hasn't even any side effects) is clearly insane..."

They have significant side effects, enough to rule them out in all but the most dire circumstances.

I did not dispute that, for now, blood transfusions are considered the most effective treatment for the catastrophic examples you offered. Instead, I conjectured that, based on current trends and research, that may one day change.

[rivalarrival]

You make it sound like everyone who goes in for a tonsillectomy or nose job is given a pint for the road!

But I digress...

I can't seem to find the article in question... I personally don't consider New Scientist a reputable journal of medicine, but I haven't read the article, its references, or the analysis, so I can't comment on the veracity of the article. However, I do have some responses for the quotes you have provided:

[quote]"But now, far from being restricted to catastrophic bleeding, transfusions are routinely used as an optional treatment, most commonly for patients in intensive care or undergoing major surgery."[/quote]

Major surgery is an instance where "catastrophic bleeding" often occurs by design. Slicing open a human being to repair a major defect isn't a neat-and-clean process. Numerous studies have demonstrated that low hemoglobin extends recovery times.

Major Surgery and Intensive Care are exactly where one would expect a large number of transfusions. When, exactly, does the article suggest that blood transfusions are "optional" and when they are "necessary"? Is it "necessary" only where the patient can survive without it, and "optional" where it only accelerates recovery?

[quote]"Most general surgery patients who receive a transfusion get one or two units of blood. With careful surgery you can avoid losing that amount in the first place."[/quote]

That says nothing about typical surgery cases, it's talking about surgery WHERE TRANSFUSIONS were done. It's probable that these surgeries are the more complicated surgeries, where even with careful hemodynamic control, the patient still loses several pints of blood.

Furthermore, there are other risks during surgery. There is a direct correlation between time on the table, and post-surgery complications. Surgeons must weigh the risks of taking the extra time (And numerous other factors) against the risks of transfusing. Hopefully, the patient was a part of this process, is aware of the risks of each course of action, agrees with the recommended course, and is not unduly influenced by disinterested parties.

[quote]I did not dispute that, for now, blood transfusions are considered the most effective treatment for the catastrophic examples you offered. Instead, I conjectured that, based on current trends and research, that may one day change.[/quote]

Agreed. Today, though, studies of the alternatives conclude that blood products are safer and/or more effective in the hospital environment than the synthetic alternatives coming on the market. As I mentioned before, the benefits of most of these products is that they can be delivered during pre-hospital care. Better "good enough" RIGHT NOW, than "typed and cross matched" after the patient is dead.

Hopefully, you are right - synthetic blood products would not be limited to whatever can be collected from donors, so doctors could be much less discriminating on who receives transfusions. Assuming that the synthetic products are at least as safe and efficacious as real blood products, the synthetics clearly win out in availability.

[moral_n]

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness and in fact am not religious. But I am familiar with the Bible.

The scripture JWs typically use to justify their blood ban, Acts 15:28,29 obviously refers to eating blood and it's ban in Leviticus. It's obvious because blood transfusions didn't exist back then. Blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. It is not being digested for nourishment.

I'm also familiar with the illustration you give of the doctor telling a patient to abstain from alcohol, so why would it be okay to put it in his veins? The problem with that illustration is the situations are entirely different. The doctor is telling the patient to abstain from alcohol because it's having an adverse effect on him and he could die. In the situation of blood transfusion, "abstain from blood" is a religious issue with the perceived "sanctity" of blood.

With that, how do you explain God's attitude towards David? In Matthew 12:1-4, Jesus and his disciples are caught eating grain on the sabbath, which the pharisees called a violation. Jesus responded with the example of David and his hungry men eating food that was "sacred" and not lawful for them to eat, as it was reserved for the priests. However, since David's men were hungry, they were not punished, nor even reprimanded for it. This is the Jewish principle called Pikuach Nefesh, or "Life supersedes Law." Jesus even alluded to this in Matthew 12:7 when he said "I want mercy and not sacrifice."

If King David could violate the sanctity of the holy food in the temple reserved for the priests and not even need forgiveness for it, then why can't a Jehovah's Witness get a blood transfusion if it is absolutely needed to save his life? Clearly, the Biblical principle is that preserving your own life is more important than the law, because life is the most sacred thing of all to God. You also have to admit that, although blood may not be necessary in all situations, there are SOME situations where it is necessary.

It seems to me that the Jehovah's Witness blood ban is merely western legalism. If I believed the bible, I would simply want the best medical option, whether it be blood or blood alternatives, in order to save my life. If it wasn't a life or death matter, then I would opt for the alternatives.

[tom sheepandgoats]

rivalarrival:

My wife, as a little girl, received a blood transfusion for a routine nosebleed. I don't claim that would happen today, but it does represent the present learning curve away from liberal and towards restrictive use of transfusions. (don't ask me to ask her how long ago that was.....are you trying to get me killed?) We may disagree on where medical science is on that curve just now, but not (I don't think) on the curve itself. It's even likely that transfusion thresholds vary according to location.....facility, culture, or nation.

You sound like you have direct experience and expertise. Perhaps I should defer to you. On the other hand, I have a culture that keeps track of transfusion news because it impacts us so deeply, much anecdotal evidence, and a fair number of cases I know of personally.

Time will tell.

New Scientist is available online per subscription, so I don't feel able to post the article. Indeed, I don't have it; my copy is paper off a newsstand issue. I guess, if you requested, I could mail it or find someone to scan it to you.

moral n:

People historically have been willing to put their lives on the line, if need be, for any number of causes. And they are usually lionized for it. Giving life for country, for example, or for scientific advancement. Some causes are decidedly frivolous, such as pursuing thrill sports, yet still, casualties are often praised for "living life to the full." If Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to put life on the line in order to not violate what they perceive to be a law of God....they are hardly the first to demonstrate that there are principles one might risk life for.

Moreover, to the extent their stand has spurred the development and availability bloodless medicine, which benefits the entire world population, they end up saving more lives than the few deaths they have incurred from their relatively tiny population.

If transfusions were not invented yet in Bible times, neither were guns. Yet existing principles on the taking of life are more than adequate. You don't need a separate directive on guns The principle behind abstaining from blood is one that, in our view, would not be contravened by modern medical developments. The only acceptable use of blood, per Leviticus, was to be "for sacrifice," "on the altar." Likely it foreshadows Christ's spilled blood, with it's permanent saving power. So we don't feel at liberty to be casual in blood's use or to readily make exceptions. Again, per Leviticus, if not used for sacrifice, spilled blood was to be poured out upon the ground, "returned to God."

Obviously, this is not reasoning that I would expect the average person, who lacks any special regard for Christ or his blood, to have much appreciation for. But I am only explaining our viewpoint. I am not trying to say you must see it the same way. Fortunately, our view on blood is not one of those stands that religions are wont to force upon the rest of the world, whether they agree with it or not. We apply it only to ourselves, as with the rest of the liabilities and the rest of the benefits to being one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Pharisee's objection to Jesus' disciples (Matt 12:1-4) is not that they were eating on the Sabbath. Everyone ate on the Sabbath. Rather it's that they were "doing work" on the Sabbath, namely harvesting and threshing. Now THAT'S legalistic, but typical of the religious leaders then. Over time they had constructed a detailed maze of regulations, in this case making the most absurd and petty applications of God's Sabbath law with it's requirement to abstain from work. They judged people's worth based on their adherence to their made-up laws. Jesus put it that they "strained out the gnat but gulped down the camel."

We don't feel the command to "abstain from blood" is in the same category.

[vargas]

I've noticed that the ones who disagree with the post said nothing on the problem of HIV- contaminated blood being given to people. Not surprising.

And it is a very REAL problem.

[tom sheepandgoats]

Vargas:

Were he still alive, I know you would not be able to convince Isaac Asimov that the problem is insignificant:

http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2007/07/isaac-asimov-an.html

[vargas]

Well I suppose Asimov wouldn't find the issue something to sniff at. Thanks for that post Tom!

I've always found Asimov intimidating because I've always found hard science fiction difficult - Frank Herbert being the
exception.

Anyway, thanks for the link!

[dave]

First off, HIV contamination is an incredibly small risk. Back in the 80's, the risk was much greater but since that time, HIV has become fairly well understood, and blood banks have incorporated that knowledge into their screening processes.

Second, your own article claims: "At any rate, had he been a Witness, it would have benefited him personally. He died in 1992, of AIDS contracted from a life-saving blood transfusion nine years prior."

It seems to me that had he been a "Witness", he would have likely died in '83 due to low hemoglobin, rather than 9 years later from AIDS. How would being a witness have benefited him? He wouldn't have had to endure the needle sticks, or surgery back in '83, he could have just died?

Asimov was ~74 years old at the time of his death.

[tom sheepandgoats]

Dave:

If "back in the 80's" the risk of HIV infection was much greater.....well....back in the 80's is when he had the transfusion. If medical people have managed to solve the HIV problem since then....and I agree with you that in the main they have.....it doesn't help Asimov any, does it?

One of my commenters stated that HIV is still a major risk. I didn't say it, nor did New Scientist say it. I'm inclined to agree with you on that point.....at least until he presents his evidence.

Regarding your main point, I have to hedge a little bit...I don't know the nature of Asimov's ailment....but only a little. The choice was not: administer transfusion or do nothing. The choice was: administer transfusion or employ bloodless surgical methods. Those methods would have been more cutting edge in 1982 than they are now....possibly not available to anyone other than the most determined of persons. But JWs are determined, and given Asimov's financial status, accesability should not have been a problem.

[El Mort]

I know this is an old article/comments page, but I just stumbled across your web site, and -

"We apply it only to ourselves, as with the rest of the liabilities and the rest of the benefits to being one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

You apply it to yourselves and to children whose parents are JWs. Not something I see you addressing in any of this.

There are situations where catastrophic circumstances (accident, chronic illness) leave doctors with no recourse other than to transfuse, and underage children are in no position to deal with such questions of mortality. They don't have any context in which to evaluate JW offers of eternal life against the possibility that they only have this life and no other.

The point is, you have the right to make any medical decision you want to based on theological grounds, no matter how ludicrious it will seem to others, but no-one of any faith has the right to impose their conclusions in these areas on children.

[tom sheepandgoats]

I can appreciate the consternation of medical people who feel that a favored, even vital, treatment is ruled out for no good reason. Still, for better or worse, children typically reflect the values of their parents, be they noble, repugnant, or controversial.

If Witness children are brought up to respect the Bible's prohibition regarding blood, should one not also consider that the same training makes them shun smoking, drug abuse, and alcohol abuse? The health risks from these latter items far exceed those of the former. I wouldn't know of any instances of transfusion deaths in the young were it not for news media giving any such case national publicity. But local examples of youngsters dying of drug or alcohol abuse are commonplace. On balance, if every child was raised a Witness, the health and life expectancy of the young would dramatically improve.

Comparisons are further complicated by the assumption, held by many, that any youngster who dies after refusing a transfusion would have lived had he accepted it. Canada's (provincial?) Supreme Court recently ruled on a lawsuit regarding a Witness youngster with chronic illness who was transfused nearly forty times. She fiercely resisted the treatment, yet doctors brushed her concerns aside as of little account. Even so, the transfusions did not save her:

http://www.tdgnews.it/en/?p=1829

Here is another account of a chronically ill youngster who also died after Courts upheld him competent to reject transfusion treatment. Would it have been better to have put him through the same ordeal as the Canadian girl?

http://tinyurl.com/mtlotn

Were doctors to encounter a deadly allergy that absolutely ruled out their treatment of first choice, they wouldn't carry on about how their hands were tied. They'd simply do their best to work around it. We appreciate when they show a similar attitude when the 'allergy' is from reasons of conscience, and not physical. Over the years, a great many medical professionals have found they can respect our stand and work with it, even if it is not one they would thenselves choose. For this we are most grateful.

[Lekozza]

Enjoyable article Tom & that goes for the others I've read so far. Blood is a fascinating subject, especially with all the recent findings/research now coming out. I also appreciate the mention, I'm getting close to 100k views on that youtube military video, which some of us think is a good thing...

I can empathize with you on your run-in with the atheist blogger(s). It's a frustrating experience.

I've recently had some atheist/evolutionist zealot harassing me on youtube, sending me emails, DEMANDING that I provide him with medical journals + papers, in order to PROVE to him blood transfusions are not such a good idea, etc, not to mention demanding evidence for God's existence!

He also found typing space to slander poor Dr. Shander and a few other medical professionals that I made the mistake of mentioning to him.

It did not even stop there. Apparently he has even gone to the trouble of creating more than one YT video debunking me and the blood topic videos that I've uploaded.

It really puzzles me, this mean spirited attitude of some of these atheists.
You would think people would be pleased about these new findings on blood and the increasing move to safer alternatives, but that just does not seem to be the case. They hate it.

By the way, hope you still check out noblood.org from time to time, I like to keep the news items updated. When I see a relevant blood story I post it to the site if no one else has.

Lekozza.

[tom sheepandgoats]

Thank you, Lekozza. I have visited noblood before. I did not realize you were associated with it. It seems a good resource, and I'll try to keep up to date.

The opening paragraph in my post relates how, for an opposer, "life-saving" and "blood transfusions" always go together. The same day I received your comment, I also received one from such an opposer, which says, in part: "JW's will allow their children to DIE rather than accept a life saving blood transfusion." Am I a true prophet, or what?

While I may respond to such a comment through email, I don't publish comments that link to sites whose sole purpose is to run down JW beliefs, and this fellow does just that. I will publish material that disagrees with me.....I almost prefer it, since it offers a platform for reply....but it has to be reasonably respectful, it has to stay on topic, rather than just be a laundry list of every gripe they may have about JWs, and, as stated, they can't link to an JW-attack site. There's enough of those sites around....they're easy enough to find....so that I don't feel I need to provide a bridge to them.

[Lekozza]

"I did not realize you were associated with it.", I'm just registered onto their site, which allows anyone (yes, even me) to post relevant news items.

L.

[Contaminated blood compensation claim]

if you feel that an illness you are currently suffering from, or have suffered within the last two years, is related to contaminated blood you have received, it is in your best interests to consult with a specialist solicitor. Although a contaminated blood compensation claim may not be able to restore your health, it can partially make up for the diminished quality of life that you may now be experiencing

[tom sheepandgoats]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but this is the first I've seen lawyers specifically targeting transfusions. Note he has no problem with blood transfusions per se, only with transfusions of "contaminated blood." How much more so might a person consider legal action if blood was forced against their will.It's legal "action", of course, hardly a legal "remedy."