Bloodless Medicine and Bloodless Surgery – Is it for You?

Number of View: 740

Bloodless Medicine And Surgery

In this article, I will like to examine the benefits of bloodless surgery.  I will not limit this subject to surgery alone since there are other critical health conditions where a patient may get blood transfusion without undergoing surgery.  Hence, the subject matter “Why we must embrace Bloodless Medicine and Bloodless Surgery”.

Bloodless Medicine is an approach to the general treatment of a critically sick person with reduced blood level without the use of blood transfusion during such treatment.  Bloodless surgery on the other hand is an approach to surgical operations that avoids blood transfusion during such operation.

Apart from religious reasons, there are other reasons why everybody, not just the Jehovah’s Witnesses should endorse and embrace bloodless surgery.

Why should we worry about blood transfusion when patients who do not get blood during critical health conditions and during surgery even do much better than those who receive blood?  Bloodless Medicine, not just surgery alone should be the standard of health care for every hospital and indeed everybody.  Unfortunately, it seems that bloodless Medicine and surgery is only relevant and as such meant for the Jehovah’s Witnesses alone.  This shouldn’t be so.  Everybody should embrace bloodless medicine not just for religious reasons but for its invaluable benefits which is the main reason why I write this article.

You Can Get HIV through Blood Transfusion

Doctors now promote bloodless surgery for fear of AIDs.  This subject was discussed very well in a publication from TIME MAGAZINE.  According to the article from TIME MAGAZINE “fear of AIDS is the only one reason why many doctors are promoting bloodless medicine and bloodless surgery.

I was also fascinated by a case study on bloodless surgery which was featured on TIME. Such story is enough to make any proponent of bloodless medicine and surgery to accept it. Time featured the experience of Henry Jackson, who suffered massive internal hemorrhage that drained 90% of his blood and dropped his hemoglobin level from 13 to a life treating 1.7 grams per deciliter.  Jackson was initially rushed to New Jersey Hospital where blood transfusion could have save him; but his wife, a member of Jehovah’s Witness for religious reasons rejected.  From New Jersey hospital, Jackson was taken to Englewood hospital where he could be treated without using blood transfusion.

According to the report from TIME, “when Jackson was wheeled into Englewood hospital, he was first paralyzed with drugs to reduce the demand for oxygen by his muscles, brain, lungs and other organs.  Next, he was given high potency formulations of iron supplements and vitamins plus “industrial doses” of a blood-building drug, synthetic erythropoietin that stimulates the bone marrow to produce red blood cells.  Finally, he was given intravenous fluids to goad the little circulation he had left.  Breathing on a ventilator and without a drop of transfused blood flowing in his veins, Jackson slowly began to respond positively to treatment.  Within just four days, his blood count had risen significantly.

Blood transfusion can turn down the immune system and can cause problems with postoperative infection

According to Awake Magazine, Dr. Edwing Deitch, medical director for the bloodless program at University Hospital, Newark, New Jersey, in a television interview explained how research into bloodless surgery developed.  He explained “Jehovah’s Witnesses … went to a lot of effort to try to find people who would operate without blood.  Some of the results of those studies found that they did better than was expected, than people who got blood.  Dr.  Deitch added: “Blood can turn down the immune system and cause problems with postoperative infection; it can increase the risk of someone  having recurring cancer, so blood, although it was good in certain circumstances, turns out to have a bad side” Dr. Deitch concluded: :it clearly improves patient outcome with less complications, and it costs less.  And, therefore, it really is a winner in all circumstances.”

Bloodless Medicine and Surgery saves cost

According to John Langone of TIME, there is the cost: at around $500 for each transfusion, plus administrative add-ons, the total bill comes to between $1 billion and $2 billion annually, more than enough incentive to consider alternatives.

With all these negative effect of blood transfusion, why should many be reluctant to accept bloodless medicine and surgery?

Think about it!