Why Trust Bloodless Surgery Ja’nese Hutchinson Brookhaven College INTRODUCTION Many people would not be alive today if it were not for blood transfusions. Blood transfusions have saved many lives and benefited hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions. However, the time we are living in today many people are requesting bloodless surgeries and the medical field has provided the world with safer options for surgery without the use of blood. “Where did this concept come from and why?” The idea of bloodless surgery came about when a religious organization, called Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on upholding their religious beliefs of being treated without blood (DoBa, T. 2013). Many medical professionals out of respect for their religious beliefs and because of the health benefits, …show more content…
1. Safety - It eliminates the risks brought on by blood transfusions. Aside from contracting blood borne diseases, there is no risk of human error that causes (www.pbs.org - “Bloodless Surgery”). 2. Economically-Friendly – The cost of blood transfusions can be up to $500 each. Blood is free but it still has to be packaged, stored and transported which can cost up to $1,000 for just one patient. Then there are the costs of treating any complications that may occur as well as additional days the patient needs to stay in the hospital for recovery (www.pbs.org - “Bloodless Surgery”). 3. Faster Recovery – Patients who have bloodless surgery recover faster and leave the hospital earlier compared to patients who had transfusions. The risks and complications of bloodless surgery are much lower. Patients spend less time in the intensive care unit. Their survival rate is higher 95% compared to patients that took blood which had an 89% survival rate (www.pbs.org - “Bloodless Surgery”). Bloodless surgery has become so advanced people are requesting them not for religious reasons, but because of the safety and cost benefits.
Phlebotomy is the practice of opening a vein by incision or puncture to remove blood as therapeutic treatment or diagnosis. In the past people did not have the advanced technology as we do today. But with today's technology phlebotomy technicians are able to understand blood and it's importance in diagnosing and treating health issues. Phlebotomy was originally called “bloodletting,” which was one the humanity’s oldest medical practices,dating back thousands of years and linked to many ancient cultures, including the Mayans,Aztecs,Egyptians and Mesopotamians. The typical purpose was to cure a person suffering from some kind of sickness or disease,including leprosy, plague, pneumonia,stroke,inflammation,herpes, and acne. The patients were pierced
Harmening, D. M. (2005). Modern Blood Banking & Transfusion Practices. Philidelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company.
Blood transfusions and ingesting blood is prohibited and considered wrong. Bone marrow are left to the individual and his principles to decide; other types of medical treatment are permitted. (Beliefnet, 2014). Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow blood transfusions base...
The Book of Blood by HP Newquist is about bloods uses now and as far back as ancient Egypt. HP Newquist explains how blood letting was very popular and very ineffective, but more often than not the person got better because losing blood made them tired and sleep helps concentrate the body’s attention on the illness. Early blood transfers also were not very successful because the scientists back then couldn’t tell the difference between O, A, B, AB blood types and therefore mixing different blood types. We now know that blood letting will not help the body get better, but people do donate their blood to help others who are in need of blood to survive, which now doctors can successfully transfer and identify blood types.
A pittance for your kidney? It’s highly unlikely that anyone would answer yes to that question; however what if someone offered significantly more than a pittance? A thousand dollars, or perhaps even five thousand dollars? Although the buying and selling of organs is illegal on American soil, it’s no secret that the opportunity exists in other countries around the world. “In America, we have waiting list for people who are trying to get kidneys, there they have people who are on a wait list to sell their kidneys” (Gillespie). It’s quite incredible how a country cut off from western civilization, like Iran, has found such an innovative way to encourage organ donation. In American society one needs to “opt in” if they wish to participate in the
"You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). This is just one of the several scriptures found in the bible from which the Jehovah Witnesses base their beliefs. To summarize the above excerpt, Jehovah Witnesses strongly believe that contributing to the health of their bodies by way of any type of blood material is not intended by God’s will. However in dire cases, ethical questions need to be raised regarding the patient’s mental capacity and legal competence. In particular cases concerning minor patients, where mental capacity is accounted for, parents should not have the dominant opinion about how their child wants to receive surgery based on their own personal beliefs.
Another benefit is that medicines and drugs have been created to prevent or minimize any types of cardiovascular diseases to occur. Since medicines are cheap compared to surgeries, it is easy to buy and it is very easy to consume.
When I was younger I know that there was a specific reason that I chose to not be a donor even a donor of blood. I felt as though if I was to give some part of myself to another person the idea that the person might turn into a clone. The thought of having another “Raymond” out in the world terrified me. I assumed whoever would receive my blood would one day wake up to realize that they were no longer who they set out to be, but rather the transfusion have made them into someone unrecognizable.
2. People should give blood because it is easy and though there might be a little pain involved it is worth it because it saves so many lives and you get great snacks.
ways to, initially perform invasive surgeries in less invasive ways has been beneficial to both the
The main advantage of this medical surgery is that it is conceived for the purpose of saving people’s lives – one organ can save eight lives. For a recipient, it means it’s a second chance at life of not having to be dependent on expensive routine treatments to survive and live a normal lifestyle. The family of a deceased donor could take consolation thinking that their loved ones did not die in vain, rather they continue to live on other people’s life. The only downsides to organ donation would be the misconceptions. Families are often believe that the donor’s bodies were kept on life support while removing the tissues which is not entirely the case. Surgeons do not remove organs or tissues unless he is pronounced as brain-dead or dead. Another downside of this procedure is the fact that the donor can’t get to choose who receives the organ, however, there are organizations that arrange a meeting between the recipient and the donor though this can occur on rare cases (Emory Health Care). This study will review the practices of organ donation and its future medical advancements.
Cohen, Jennie. "A Brief History of Bloodletting." History.com. 30 May 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2013. .
Organ Sale is the exchange of human organs for money. This topic is very debatable because some people view organ sales as morally wrong mainly due to the view that only the wealthy will be able to afford the purchase of organs. In addition, many believe those living in poverty will be taken advantage of because they need the money. The selling of human organs can be beneficial to everybody and should be legal. By making organ sales legal it will give individual donors a better financial life, create a safer environment for those who sell their organs, make organ transplants available to more people and most importantly will save many lives.
In two cases, decided three years apart, blood transfusions were decided to be invasive and therefore greatly violative of bodily integrity. In re Brown, 294 Ill.App.3d 159, 171 (1997). Logically this would cause the parens patrie power of the State to be less effective. However, Brown has not been cited for the blood transfusion determination since it was handed down. It even conflicts with a case in the same appellate district that found blood transfusions to be a “relatively non-invasive and risk-free procedure” especially as compared to a caesarean section. In re Baby Boy Doe, 260 Ill.App.3d 392, 402 (1994). While the case law is conflicting, giving grounds for a judge to possibly choose between the determinations, Baby Boy Doe did leave the determination of whether or not a non-invasive blood transfusion may be forced upon a religiously objecting person by a court. Id. Depending on how the court wishes to proceed, Brown might have answered that
By donating blood to insure there is enough in supply, the life we save may be our own.