blood transfusion

[Aqua13]

in the bible it says that the blood is sacred, and that it shouldnt be used as an to heal one another.

well the cristian bible said that.

anyways, after dong research on blood transfusion (thanx to jehova's witnesses)

i notice that blood transfusion isnt much helping people,

in fact, some of the blood packets that people donate could possible have AIDS,

and also once blood is in the packet, for a week or two, the blood will start to lose (i dont know how to spell it) and start to have bacteria.

i was scared at first, and learned more, that there are other ways of saving someone's life without taking out blood.

jehova's witnesses recomended CELL SAVER.

the blood that they take from the body (while surgery) and goes in this machine, and clean it and regenerate it (weird huh) and put it bback in the body (without it technically leaving the body)



so the question i would like to ask, are blood transfusion good and think my info is false.


or do u think its something that should be discussed and removed as an ailment. ( i think i used the right owrd, if i didnt say the word im suppose to say)

 

[Informal Gluttony]

Uh, they check if you have AIDS and such. So the chance of getting AIDS is extremely low.

Blood transfusions save lives. I find nothing wrong with it.

 

[XxRebel_GirlxX]

I think blood transfusions are good for people since it helps them save their lives. Not all blood creates bacteria it depends on your body and how your body reacts to the blood

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

...and why the fuck would you listen to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Since when are those hacks who sell their religion door to door like goddamn girl scout cookies qualified to be determining what medical techniques are and aren't effective?

Blood transfusions contaminated with AIDS haven't been an issue in decades because people are rigorously analyzed before the needle ever goes into their arm, and the blood is thoroughly screened for everything you can imagine; parasites, antibodies, viruses, whatever. Additionally, the blood is kept frozen and it's generally good for about a month (but even if it did go bad after two weeks, why would it be used? How is that an issue?), so I have no idea where you're getting your information from but it is totally incorrect.

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding this "Cell Saver" procedure due to your atrocious grammar, but if a patient is in a situation where they would need a blood transfusion in the first place (hemorrhaging during surgery or whatever) why would they take more blood out of their body? It would almost definitely kill the patient.

It's best to avoid transfusions whenever possible, this is true, but honest to fucking God, they do save lives. Your theory is ridiculous.

EDIT: Okay, so I asked my mom (medical professional) about Cell Saver and she offered a much better explanation than you did; essentially it is the practice of collecting lost blood from a patient during surgery, filtering it, and putting it back into their body. It has its pros and cons but is increasing in popularity, because it is ALWAYS best for a person to use their own blood.

Nevertheless, your reasons for favoring it over traditional transfusions are still completely asinine. Get your facts straight next time.

 

[Aqua13]

...and why the fuck would you listen to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Since when are those hacks who sell their religion door to door like goddamn girl scout cookies qualified to be determining what medical techniques are and aren't effective?

Blood transfusions contaminated with AIDS haven't been an issue in decades because people are rigorously analyzed before the needle ever goes into their arm, and the blood is thoroughly screened for everything you can imagine; parasites, antibodies, viruses, whatever. Additionally, the blood is kept frozen and it's generally good for about a month (but even if it did go bad after two weeks, why would it be used? How is that an issue?), so I have no idea where you're getting your information from but it is totally incorrect.

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding this "Cell Saver" procedure due to your atrocious grammar, but if a patient is in a situation where they would need a blood transfusion in the first place (hemorrhaging during surgery or whatever) why would they take more blood out of their body? It would almost definitely kill the patient.

It's best to avoid transfusions whenever possible, this is true, but honest to fucking God, they do save lives. Your theory is ridiculous.

EDIT: Okay, so I asked my mom (medical professional) about Cell Saver and she offered a much better explanation than you did; essentially it is the practice of collecting lost blood from a patient during surgery, filtering it, and putting it back into their body. It has its pros and cons but is increasing in popularity, because it is ALWAYS best for a person to use their own blood.

Nevertheless, your reasons for favoring it over traditional transfusions are still completely asinine. Get your facts straight next time.

1)i have an open mind, and i gave them a chance, they are really smart, and alot of the stuff i studied in other religious that got me confused, the stuff they said makes alot of sense.

2)sorry for my horrible grammar, i meant to say when the blood is leaking out of the the area of the body (where surgery is taken place) it goes in the tube, and regenrating and cleaning the body, and putting it back, im sorry i forgot to mention that.

but i saw a documentary on it saying how blood transfusion doesnt actually save lives, that in most cases, that someone that supposedly nered a blood transufion in order to live, only extended his life for a short amount but was still terminal


3)sorry for the stupidity of me, try to calm down though, i mean, it was a question i just had and didnt think it through.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

1)i have an open mind, and i gave them a chance, they are really smart, and alot of the stuff i studied in other religious that got me confused, the stuff they said makes alot of sense.

2)sorry for my horrible grammar, i meant to say when the blood is leaking out of the the area of the body (where surgery is taken place) it goes in the tube, and regenrating and cleaning the body, and putting it back, im sorry i forgot to mention that.

but i saw a documentary on it saying how blood transfusion doesnt actually save lives, that in most cases, that someone that supposedly nered a blood transufion in order to live, only extended his life for a short amount but was still terminal


3)sorry for the stupidity of me, try to calm down though, i mean, it was a question i just had and didnt think it through.

I think you're just angry because blood transfusions can't cure dyslexia.

 

[Forever Atlas]

Well, I made a thread similar to this in the intel section of the forums. However, it was not intended to take a religious tone since it was in intel and not Religious. I'll paste the opening post:

http://forums.khinsider.com/intel/104174-medical-advancements-blood.html

I was just reading the news paper yesterday and noticed that a local hospital is introducing a new program. Blood conservation programs. Now this is nothing new to me, and has been a progressive project in the medical community for years and years, but for many people even many doctors this may be a new concept, or even one hard to grasp.

For decades past, blood transfusions have been used in a lot of major medical procedures. Religious groups that have refused transfusions have played a major role in these developments. Now there are several advancements made giving patients the alternatives rather than a blood transfusion.

A broad view of some alternatives include:

Fluids: Ringer's lactate solution, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, and others are used to maintain blood volume, preventing hypovolemic shock. Some fluids now being tested can transport oxygen.


Drugs: Genetically engineered proteins can stimulate the production of red blood cells (erythropoietin), blood platelets (interleukin-11), and various white blood cells (GM-CSF, G-CSF). Other medications greatly reduce blood loss during surgery (aprotinin, antifibrinolytics) or help to reduce acute bleeding (desmopressin).


Biological hemostats: Collagen and cellulose woven pads are used to stop bleeding by direct application. Fibrin glues and sealants can plug puncture wounds or cover large areas of bleeding tissue.


Blood salvage: Salvaging machines recover blood that is lost during surgery or trauma. The blood is cleansed and can be returned to the patient in a closed circuit. In extreme cases, liters of blood can be recovered using such a system.


Surgical techniques: Thorough operative planning, including consultation with experienced clinicians, helps the surgical team to avoid complications. Prompt action to stop bleeding is essential. Delays greater than 24 hours can greatly increase patient mortality. Dividing large surgeries into several smaller ones decreases total blood loss.


Surgical tools: Some devices cut and seal blood vessels simultaneously. Other devices can seal bleeding on large areas of tissue. Laparoscopic and minimally invasive instruments allow surgeries to be performed without the blood loss associated with large incisions

A few videos on this topic also:

No Blood--Medicine Meets the Challenge

No Blood--Medicine Meets the Challenge Pt. 2

Transfusion-Alternative Health Care--Meeting Patient Needs and Rights

What do you think about this? Would it be something you would do instead of the transfusions?

Im sure there are many other articles on this you can find. So if you would like, I would like to hear opinions on this new advancement.


(please note that just because I did get these videos and some information a lot from a religious source do not turn this into a religious topic. This is purely about medicine and medical practices. If this was meant to be a religious debate I know where it would go. So for those of you who have a habit of doing things like that just because of some grudge, please do not)

Now, since this is in the section of religion, I do agree with Aqua though. When it comes to a religious persons' faith, every [major] decision made in their lives is looked upon with scrutiny. Blood transfusions is one issue that many do take up a stance against. It's not a matter of saving your life or pleasing self, its a matter of keeping faith.

 

[Deleted member 70496]

Did you look into other sources besides those created by Jehovah's Witnesses? If not, your sources are most likely biased and you should look into sources from the other side of the argument and also completely non-biased sources.

 

[violent_anger]

jesus made a big point of how he didn't care about the little details, i think he's cool with it.

but i saw a documentary on it saying how blood transfusion doesnt actually save lives, that in most cases, that someone that supposedly nered a blood transufion in order to live, only extended his life for a short amount but was still terminal

and sometimes it extends his life for the needed amount to get him stable. would you forsake that man who could survive with the help of blood transfusions?

 

[Aqua13]

Did you look into other sources besides those created by Jehovah's Witnesses? If not, your sources are most likely biased and you should look into sources from the other side of the argument and also completely non-biased sources.

the jehova's witness had an a documents about the blood transfusion that was unbaised, had interviews of people saying that other methods were better and that they were able to live longer lives than expected with blood transfusion


also doctors in the documentary that werent jehova's witnesses have been agreeing and people were able to save more money into these new methods

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

Now, since this is in the section of religion, I do agree with Aqua though. When it comes to a religious persons' faith, every [major] decision made in their lives is looked upon with scrutiny. Blood transfusions is one issue that many do take up a stance against. It's not a matter of saving your life or pleasing self, its a matter of keeping faith.

And it's perfectly illegal for patients to be given blood transfusions unless they've consented to it beforehand, so where's the debate here? The question of the thread was whether or not blood transfusions are "good", and yes that question is as vague as it sounds.

 

[Forever Atlas]

^
Not completely true, there have been many cases in which unwanted medical procedures were forced on people.


Oh and @ Only Dancing

Here's a whole site dedicated to it:

NoBlood - Transfusion alternatives. Blood management.

 

[Garth]

the jehova's witness had an a documents about the blood transfusion that was unbaised, had interviews of people saying that other methods were better and that they were able to live longer lives than expected with blood transfusion


also doctors in the documentary that werent jehova's witnesses have been agreeing and people were able to save more money into these new methods

The shear fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses had documents like this in the first place make me want to believe your point less and less.

 

[Aqua13]

And it's perfectly illegal for patients to be given blood transfusions unless they've consented to it beforehand, so where's the debate here? The question of the thread was whether or not blood transfusions are "good", and yes that question is as vague as it sounds.

yes i know, but i meant in your opinion, its vaige, yes, but it brings up good topics.

and why are u bashing today? u usually help me alot and now u are really angry, did something happen?

 

[Darkness of White]

Well, I'm not one to get into religion, but not all blood is diseased, and if it is, it can mostly be cleaned, or it isn't accepted. If blood can save a life, I'm all for it. When I'm old enough and I get checked out, I will start donating my own blood in hopes it will either help in medical research or in someone's life.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

the jehova's witness had an a documents about the blood transfusion that was unbaised

You have got to be fucking kidding me. An unbiased religious organization? You opened this thread by stating that, according to the bible, blood is sacred and should not be used to heal one another -- how is that unbiased? How retarded can you possibly be?

I'm beginning to see why you were a huge nominee for "Most Useless Member" or whatever it was during the Forum Awards, and I hope you win it because I don't think anybody deserves it as much as you.

and why are u bashing today? u usually help me alot and now u are really angry, did something happen?

And here I thought I was helping you by making you aware of what an idiot you're acting like.

 

[Forever Atlas]

I think she was saying the video documentary about the medical procedures was unbiased because it looked at both sides, those who supported transfusions and those that supported alternatives.

 

[Aqua13]

Well, I'm not one to get into religion, but not all blood is diseased, and if it is, it can mostly be cleaned, or it isn't accepted. If blood can save a life, I'm all for it. When I'm old enough and I get checked out, I will start donating my own blood in hopes it will either help in medical research or in someone's life.

but thats the thing, does blood really save lives?

if blood is deseased, how do we know it can be cleaned? it could have AIDS, it could have cancer, and it could have any other desease that isnt curable.


anyways, logically if there are other ways of saving a life, wouldnt it be better to use them and not waste any blood thats just sitting there.

like sam said, blood would last about a month or two.

imagine old blood sitting there, for two months and being placed in your body hoping it making u better, but instead makes u worst

 

[Deleted member 70496]

the jehova's witness had an a documents about the blood transfusion that was unbaised, had interviews of people saying that other methods were better and that they were able to live longer lives than expected with blood transfusion


also doctors in the documentary that werent jehova's witnesses have been agreeing and people were able to save more money into these new methods

The Jehovah's Witnesses probably compiled information from unbiased contributors in a biased way. If I were you I'd go searching for more information than just what was told to you by JW.

 

[Garth]

but thats the thing, does blood really save lives?

Please tell me you're joking.