i'm just being a wise *** but it brings up a good point. if blood transfusions are againsts god's wishes and is considered sacred(THAT IS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT,IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT, IT'S FINE.), then is he against child birth? i don't get how some people could say GOD could be against transfusions when it is BLOOD that is transferred from a mother to her child through pregnacy. that is why children aquire HIV/AIDS or drug dependecies, etc. a jehovah witness came to my door and show me a scripture supporting their belief which is fine, but it doesn't say "artificial" transfusions , it simply says transfusion. once again, how could he be against something that happen naturally through pregnacy--- the tranfer of blood? This isn't a shot at any specific group, but if anyone can explain more, i would like that. Blood is considered sacred by God as evidenced in the holy scriptures. It is not the act of transfusing the blood that is against his laws. It goes much deeper. It is the disregard for God's view of the sacredness of blood that is wrong. The scripture you were read talks about "abstaining" from blood because it is where the "soul" or life is. Man's disrespect for God's law is the issue not the act of transfusing blood or the act of eating blood. (which some people do in certain foodstuffs) Pregnancy was designed by God. If you think about it, it is fitting that the mothers blood and baby's blood is mixed, because the mother "gives" life to her child. There is no disrespect for any of God's commands in this instance because it is the way He designed us. Hope this helps explain a little better. I have never heard of any reason or can think of any reason why it would be against God's rules Jehovah's Witnesses are nuts. Have you ever noticed that they don't have any windows on their church buildings? Hmmm. Maybe that will be my next question. I know of no scriptures that say God is against blood transfusions.
I think it's really unbelievable how lots of religious people and groups get so worked up about little "rules" they think God wants them to follow. God does have rules, but I think his main concern is that we have a personal relationship with Him and have accepted His gift of His Son. He must think we're all insane down here arguing about whether He approves of blood transfusions or not. I think that someone has made their own literal translation of what GOD stated about drinking blood! I have evne asked people who practice this and they have not been able to completely explain it. Yes, God wants you to die. No...there's no commandment saying we cannot give/receive blood. ;)
The belief that blood harbors our soul...is not scriptural. Our soul is not a physical part of our body... Our blood does not give life..it is God... If donating blood gives someone else a chance to keep on going and maybe help them find salvation, then by all means, I'll donate. Blood donation has kept many many people alive, my own child included... God knows what He's doing...and if He has designed us to be able to give our own blood to others, then by all means we should do so. For those who want God's view point, it is necessary to consider how he feels about blood. His position on blood is very clear in scripture. I won't go into that right now. But the fundamental issue is this: God allows and expects us to take measures to preserve, protect, and sustain our lives. Are we allowed to do this by any means or does God limit what we can and cannot do? To illustrate: my next-door neighbor has done time for murder. He has made it quite clear he is going to murder my family the first chance he gets and he has threatened us repeatedly. There is no doubt in my mind. Sure enough, one night he breaks in and tries to kill us all. I kill him instead. We know this as self defense. Now: same scenario 鈥?slightly different intro. He never breaks in, I go over to his house and I kill him. Is this self defense? No, this is murder. Why? Because while God gives me the right to defend and preserve my life, any and every method of doing so is not acceptable to him. I do not have the right to a preemptive attack.
It is similar with blood transfusions. We have the right to preserve and sustain our lives in medical situations and we are certainly grateful that the medical community helps us do that. But not every single method is acceptable to God. We can use blood only with the the parameters God has set. And there are no parameters within the Bible that gives us the right to use blood to preserve or sustain our lives. It is true as you pointed out that blood is passed on naturally to the child. God obviously put that in place. But there is nothing, implicit or explicit in scripture, which would allow us to sustain our lives with the use of blood. That is the key: sustaining our lives with the use of blood. We cannot sustain our lives BY ANY MEANS WE FEEL NECESSARY. Thus we read at Acts 15:29 the command to abstain from blood. Is it possible to abstain from blood and at the same time use it to sustain our lives? how could any christian be against blood transfusions? that's the entire basis of their salvation is a blood transfusion. Respect for the Sanctity of Blood
鈥淔lesh with its soul鈥攊ts blood鈥攜ou must not eat.鈥濃€擥en. 9:4.
LIVING as they do in a world that turns a deaf ear to the Word of God, Christians are daily confronted with situations that test their faith in God and the rightness of his law. God requires respect for the sanctity of blood. But the world has strayed so far from his paths that many are not aware that there is a divine law governing such matters as the use of blood, and those that do know the law often violate it without any feeling that they have done wrong. With the blessing of the religious clergy they have spilled the lifeblood of countless persons on the battlefield, and as they do it they pray for God to be with them. When they hear that in many parts of the world blood of animals is regularly consumed as food, or when they see blood products sold in stores where they do business, they see nothing out of the way in it. And when they hear reports of the tremendous increase in the number of blood transfusions鈥攏ow well over five million in a year鈥攖hey view it as a mark of medical progress.
2 In sharp contrast to the world鈥檚 indifference is the record of nearly a million persons in all parts of the world who do obey God鈥檚 law on the sanctity of blood. They have met the test of their faith and stood firm. But the public press has taken advantage of the ignorance of the people to misrepresent them as religious fanatics, particularly as regards their rejection of blood transfusions. And the religious clergy of Christendom and Jewry have added their voices, declaring that the law of God is not applicable in these cases where an individual鈥檚 life is involved. The result is that many uninformed persons have been turned against God and his Word as unreasonable and unloving. But how can the Source of all wisdom himself be unreasonable? How can God, who is love and who endowed man with the capacity to love, himself be unloving? He cannot and he is not! His is the right way, and a careful consideration of his Word helps us to get matters in proper focus. As the Life-giver he tells us what we must do in order to continue to live. By his laws he lovingly protects us from doing things in ignorance that might result in injury to ourselves, even the loss of life. The facts show that this is true in regard to his law on the matter of blood.鈥擯rov. 2:6; 1聽John 4:16; Ps. 25:4.
DIVINE LEGISLATION ON BLOOD
3 The issue is not new; it is not something peculiar to this twentieth century with its research into the medical use of blood. It was over 4,300 years ago, when Noah and his household, the only human survivors of the global flood, came out of the ark, that God stated to them his law on blood. Before this, man had eaten only the soulless vegetation and fruits, but now, for the first time, God granted permission for man to add meat to his diet, saying: 鈥淓very moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul鈥攊ts blood鈥攜ou must not eat.鈥?(Gen. 9:3, 4) The law is clear. Meat can be eaten, but not with the blood still in it, because the blood represents the soul or life of the creature. Man must show respect for the sanctity of blood and, so doing, show his respect for the Life-giver, Jehovah God.
4 Some eight centuries later, when the Israelites, who had recently been spared from annihilation in Egypt, were gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai, Jehovah again emphasized the restriction on blood. 鈥淚t is a statute to time indefinite for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.鈥?(Lev. 3:17) No distinction was made as to the source of the blood; whether animal or human, it was not to be taken into the body as food. It was not even to be stored, as shown when God went on to say: 鈥淎s for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it.鈥?(Lev. 17:13, 14) The reason was clearly stated. The soul or the life of the flesh is in the blood, and obedience to God鈥檚 law on blood would show proper regard for the sanctity of life and for the Source of life.
5 Even in times of emergency it was recognized that there was no justification for setting aside the divine law concerning the sanctity of blood. This is shown by an occurrence when the army of Israel under King Saul was fighting the Philistines. It had been a hard fight and the men were at the point of exhaustion. 鈥淎nd the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood.鈥?This was no insignificant thing, excusable because of the physical condition of the men. It was reported to Saul: 鈥淟ook! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.鈥?(1聽Sam. 14:32, 33) They did not view the matter as do certain rabbis today who theorize that any of the requirements of the Law can be set aside when the saving of a specific life is involved. What the men were doing was a sin against God, and immediate steps were taken to put an end to it.
CHRISTIAN OBLIGATION
6 Of course, Christians are not under the law covenant made with Moses as mediator. That law covenant passed out of existence, having fulfilled its purpose, when the new covenant was made over the blood of Jesus Christ. Does this mean that the restrictions on the use of blood have passed away too? Not at all! Because what the law covenant had to say about refraining from the eating of blood merely emphasized the requirement that is set forth in the law God gave to Noah, and that is binding upon all mankind. To set this matter straight in the minds of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, none of whom were any longer under the Law, the Christian governing body at Jerusalem directed their attention to the obligations that devolved upon them in this matter, saying: 鈥淭he holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.鈥濃€擜cts 15:28, 29.
7 However, various theological commentators on this text say that this is nothing that concerns us. 鈥業t was only a temporary thing,鈥?they say, 鈥榙esigned to prevent giving offense to Jewish converts. And the need for such a prohibition having passed away, the repeal is understood even though not stated.鈥?But we ask, What need has passed? There are still natural Jews associated with the Christian congregation, so it cannot be said that their absence has removed the need. The Scriptures make clear that man was to abstain from blood because the life is in the blood. Is it any less true now than it was then that the life is in the blood? And if it is argued that respect for the sacrificial use of blood is no longer binding because Christians are not called on to offer up animal sacrifices, then let it be noted that such use of animal sacrifices among the followers of Christ had come to an end sixteen years before the apostolic decree was issued. Furthermore, those who contend that Jesus鈥?teaching, that 鈥榥ot what enters into the mouth but what proceeds out of the mouth is what defiles a man,鈥?has made obsolete the ruling on blood are, in effect, arguing that the ruling on Christian abstinence from blood, which decree was delivered under direction of God鈥檚 holy spirit, was repealed before it was issued; because Jesus made his statement here referred to seventeen years before the decision on blood was sent out by the council at Jerusalem.鈥擬att. 15:11.
8 The governing body that sent out the decision on blood did not have in mind that it was merely expedient in view of the situation then and could later be dispensed with. If the prohibition of blood was temporary, then the rest of the decision must fall into the same category, which would mean that abstinence from idolatry and fornication were also temporary and designed to avoid hurting the feelings of new converts. But has the necessity for these prohibitions passed, so that fornication and idolatry are now permissible to Christians? Definitely not! The terminology of the decree indicates no time limitation; the restrictions are 鈥渘ecessary things鈥?now even as they were then. As Clarke鈥檚 Commentary, in discussing Genesis 9:4, well observes: 鈥淭hat the prohibition has been renewed under the Christian dispensation, can admit of little doubt by any man who dispassionately reads Acts xv. 20, 29; xxi. 25, where even the Gentile converts are charged to abstain from it on the authority, not only of the apostles, but of the Holy Ghost, .聽.聽. not for fear of stumbling the converted Jews, the gloss of theologians, but because it was one .聽.聽. of those necessary points, from the burden .聽.聽. of obedience to which they could not be excused.鈥?br>
9 The facts of history confirm this understanding of the matter. Early Christians did not view the prohibition on blood as of importance only in avoiding offense to Jewish converts. They did not feel that it could be set aside if it would endanger their lives to insist on it. It was well known, even among their persecutors, that Christians would not eat blood, and they would test a person to see if he was truly Christian, not only by urging him to offer incense to the pagan gods of Rome, but on occasion by urging him to eat blood sausage. So crucial was the matter that eating blood was viewed as a denial of the Christian faith. Tertullian, who lived at the beginning of the third century, referred to this when addressing his writing to the Roman world. He said: 鈥淟et your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals鈥?blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.鈥?Origen, too, another Christian writer, in his defense of Christian teachings, declared: 鈥淎s to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in them.鈥?br>
10 Even as late as the year 692, a religious council in Constantinople (the Synod of Troullos), in its 67th canon, declared: 鈥淲e suitably rebuke those, who in some way prepare a meal with the use of the blood of any animal and they thus eat it in order to satisfy the gluttonous belly. If, therefore, anyone will henceforth attempt to eat the blood of any animal in whatsoever way, he will, if a priest, be unfrocked and excommunicated if a layman.鈥?Belief in the importance of the apostolic decree on blood still continues in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
11 In the West, however, disregard for the divine law on blood grew most notably from the fourth century onward. Augustine, through whom Plato鈥檚 teaching of inherent immortality of the soul was also popularized, argued that the decree had lost its importance since its purpose had been accomplished. Finally, in the fifteenth century the church of Rome had swung so far away from the viewpoint of the early Christians that the blood, not of animals, but of three young boys was appropriated in an unsuccessful attempt to revive the ailing pope of Rome, Innocent VIII, and that at the cost of the lives of all three blood donors. So it is evident that the indifference of modern-day Christendom toward the sanctity of blood is not a reflection of Christian faith, but is the result of a falling away from the faith.鈥?聽Tim. 4:1.
MISUSE OF BLOOD AS FOOD
12 This makes it vital for true Christians in this time of the end to be on the alert if they are to show proper respect for the sanctity of blood. They must avoid the world鈥檚 misuse of blood. For example, in Africa there are some native peoples who supplement their diet by drinking blood from the jugular vein of their cattle. In many places men line up at slaughterhouses to drink the blood of freshly slaughtered cattle, in the belief that it is a cure for certain ailments. In the Far East there are many lands where blood is used as a basic ingredient in certain soups and gravies. In South America a dish that is quite common consists of pig鈥檚 blood mixed with rice or potatoes and condiments, and blood is even sold and eaten as candy. Blood sausage, under various names, is available almost everywhere. All of these practices show rank disregard for the sanctity of life because they violate the law of the Life-giver on the matter of blood.
13 The law on blood also rules out the eating of anything that has died of strangulation, because the blood would not have been drained. So any animal found smothered or dead in a trap and animals that have been shot but not immediately bled are not fit for food. The practice in many lands of killing chickens by strangulation, breaking the neck but not cutting it, also makes these unfit for consumption by Christians. Some butchers, with no regard for the divine law on these matters, do not properly bleed the animals they prepare for food; in fact, they may deliberately impair drainage to add weight to the meat. If a Christian learns that his butcher does not give attention to the draining of the blood, then he will look for another place to do business or even refrain from eating meat if nothing else is available. Likewise, a conscientious person will not eat meat in a restaurant if he knows that it is customary locally not to give attention to proper bleeding. Under such circumstances, a Christian who wants to eat meat may have to buy a live animal or bird and arrange to have the killing done himself.
14 Disrespect for God鈥檚 law is so rampant that whole blood, blood plasma and blood fractions are used freely in numerous products that are sold for food. For example, it is reported that some meat packers include blood as a part of their regular recipe for wieners, bologna and other cold-meat loaves. They may not all call it blood; but, regardless of what they call it, if it is blood or part of the blood it is wrong. Not all meat packers do this by any means, but some do. In certain localities it is also known that hamburger is made up largely of fat with blood added. In Russia blood bakeries were put in operation years ago where seven parts of rye flour are mixed with three parts of defibrinated ox blood in the bread. In other lands some bakers use dried plasma powder in pastry as a substitute for egg white. And various tonics and tablets sold by druggists show on their labels that they contain blood fractions such as hemoglobin. So it is necessary for one to be alert, to be acquainted with the practices in his community, to make reasonable inquiry at places where he buys meat and to read and understand the labels on packaged goods. As the old world becomes more careless in its attitude toward God鈥檚 law on blood it is important for Christians to exercise increased care if they are to keep themselves 鈥渨ithout spot from the world.鈥濃€擩as. 1:27.
BLOOD TRANSFUSION
15 Over the centuries man鈥檚 misuses of blood have taken on many forms. Ancient Egyptian princes used human blood for rejuvenation; others drank the blood of their enemies. But not until after William Harvey鈥檚 research into the circulation of the blood, in the seventeenth century, was there any extensive effort made to transfuse blood into the circulatory system of another creature. After having suffered severe setbacks due to fatalities, blood transfusion finally came to be viewed with more favor at the beginning of this twentieth century, when research made it possible to identify certain blood types. The two world wars and the Korean war gave doctors ample opportunity to experiment with the therapeutic use of blood, and now the process has been developed to the point that doctors use not only whole blood and blood plasma, which is the nearly colorless liquid in which the blood cells are carried, but also red cells apart from the plasma, and the various plasma proteins as they feel the need.
16 Is God鈥檚 law violated by such medical use of blood? Is it wrong to sustain life by infusions of blood or plasma or red cells or the various blood fractions? Yes! The law that God gave to Noah and which applies to all his descendants makes it wrong for anyone to eat blood, that is, to use the blood of another creature to nourish or sustain one鈥檚 life. Even as Tertullian in his Apology showed how the early Christians reasoned on the matter, so today it is recognized that if this prohibition applies to animal blood, it applies with even more force to human blood. It includes 鈥渁ny blood at all.鈥濃€擫ev. 3:17.
17 Arguments to the effect that the prohibition on the use of blood issued by the early Christian governing body did not deal with human blood, but only with animal blood, show ignorance of the facts of history. In ancient Rome, which dominated the Mediterranean world in the first century, spectators at the gladiatorial contests would rush into the arena after the fight and suck the blood streaming from the neck of the vanquished gladiator. Some from among the Scythians reportedly ate their dead relatives. Treaties were made among some peoples by mutually drinking a portion of each other鈥檚 blood; and human blood caught in the hand and eaten was used to seal initiation into the rites of the pagan goddess Bellona. So when the apostles, under direction of the holy spirit, said that Christians were to keep themselves from blood, they did have in mind human blood too.
18 It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: 鈥淚n performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary鈥攖hat is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes.鈥?br>
19 In view of the emphasis put on the use of blood in the medical world, new treatments involving its use are constantly being recommended. But regardless of whether it is whole blood or a blood fraction, whether it is blood taken from one鈥檚 own body or that taken from someone else, whether it is administered as a transfusion or as an injection, the divine law applies. God has not given man blood to use as he might use other substances; he requires respect for the sanctity of blood.
20 What a fine example in respect for this law was set by God-fearing King David! Before the enemies of God鈥檚 people had been driven from the land, the Philistines had a garrison in Bethlehem near Jerusalem, and on one occasion 鈥淒avid showed his craving and said: 鈥極 that I might have a drink of the water from the cistern of Bethlehem, which is at the gate!鈥欌€?Yes, he wished that the Philistines were gone and that he could be free to go to that cistern and be refreshed by its water. But on hearing his expression, 鈥渢hree [valiant men] forced their way into the camp of the Philistines and drew water from the cistern of Bethlehem, which is at the gate, and came carrying and bringing it to David.鈥?What they brought was nothing more than water, but they did it at the risk of their lives, and David knew it. 鈥淎nd David did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah. And he went on to say: 鈥業t is unthinkable on my part, as regards my God, to do this! Is it the blood of these men that I should drink at the risk of their souls? For it was at the risk of their souls that they brought it.鈥?And he did not consent to drink it.鈥?(1聽Chron. 11:16-19; 2聽Sam. 23:15-17) David respected the law of God. Not only did he abstain from animal blood; he avoided the far more gross wrong of consuming human blood. Yes, he avoided doing anything that even resembled violation of that law. He was a man after God鈥檚 own heart. It is a like course of obedience from the heart that moves mature Christians today to abstain from any practice at all that involves misuse of blood. Out of love for God they show respect for the sanctity of blood.
[Footnotes]
Apology, translated by T. R. Glover (1931).
Origen鈥擟ontra Celsum, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 23 (1872).
Great Greek Encyclopedia, of Paul Drandakis, pp. 708, 709.
A History of the Councils of the Church, From the Original Documents (1896).
Blood Transfusions鈥擧ow Safe?
Before submitting to any serious medical procedure, a thinking person will learn the possible benefits and the risks. What about blood transfusions? They are now a prime tool in medicine. Many physicians who are genuinely interested in their patients may have little hesitation about giving blood. It has been called the gift of life.
Millions have donated blood or have accepted it. For 1986-87 Canada had 1.3 million donors in a population of 25 million. 鈥淸In] the most recent year for which figures are available, between 12 million and 14 million units of blood were used in transfusions in the United States alone.鈥濃€擳he New York Times, February 18, 1990.
鈥淏lood has always enjoyed a 鈥榤agical鈥?quality,鈥?notes Dr.聽Louise J.聽Keating. 鈥淔or its first 46 years, the blood supply was perceived as being safer than it actually was by both physicians and the public.鈥?(Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, May 1989) What was the situation then, and what is it now?
Even 30 years ago, pathologists and blood-bank personnel were advised: 鈥淏lood is dynamite! It can do a great deal of good or a great deal of harm. The mortality from blood transfusion equals that from ether anesthesia or appendectomy. There is said to be approximately one death in 1,000 to 3,000 or possibly 5,000 transfusions. In the London area there has been reported one death for every 13,000 bottles of blood transfused.鈥濃€擭ew York State Journal of Medicine, January 15, 1960.
Have the dangers since been eliminated so that transfusions are now safe? Frankly, each year hundreds of thousands have adverse reactions to blood, and many die. In view of the preceding comments, what may come to your mind are blood-borne diseases. Before examining this aspect, consider some risks that are less well-known.
BLOOD AND YOUR IMMUNITY
Early in the 20th century, scientists deepened man鈥檚 understanding of the marvelous complexity of blood. They learned that there are different blood types. Matching a donor鈥檚 blood and a patient鈥檚 blood is critical in transfusions. If someone with type聽A blood receives type B, he may have a severe hemolytic reaction. This can destroy many of his red cells and quickly kill him. While blood-typing and cross matching are now routine, errors do occur. Every year people die of hemolytic reactions.
The facts show that the issue of incompatibility goes far beyond the relatively few blood types that hospitals seek to match. Why? Well, in his article 鈥淏lood Transfusion: Uses, Abuses, and Hazards,鈥?Dr.聽Douglas H.聽Posey, Jr., writes: 鈥淣early 30 years ago Sampson described blood transfusion as a relatively dangerous procedure .聽.聽. [Since then] at聽least 400 additional red cell antigens have been identified and characterized. There is聽no doubt the number will continue to increase because the red cell membrane is enormously聽complex.鈥濃€擩ournal of the National Medical Association, July聽1989.
Scientists are now studying the effect of transfused blood on the body鈥檚 defense, or immune, system. What might that mean for you or for a relative who needs surgery?
When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient鈥檚 immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant. Even blood that has been 鈥減roperly鈥?cross matched can suppress the immune system. At a conference of pathologists, the point was made that hundreds of medical papers 鈥渉ave linked blood transfusions to immunologic responses.鈥濃€斺€淐ase Builds Against Transfusions,鈥?Medical World News, December 11, 1989.
A prime task of your immune system is detecting and destroying malignant (cancer) cells. Could suppressed immunity lead to cancer and death? Note two reports.
The journal Cancer (February 15, 1987) gave the results of a study done in the Netherlands: 鈥淚n the patients with colon cancer, a significant adverse effect of transfusion on long-term survival was seen. In this group there was a cumulative 5-year overall survival of 48% for the transfused and 74% for the nontransfused patients.鈥?Physicians at the University of Southern California followed up on a hundred patients who underwent cancer surgery. 鈥淭he recurrence rate for all cancers of the larynx was 14% for those who聽did聽not receive blood and 65% for those who did. For cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, and nose or sinus, the recurrence rate was 31% without transfusions and 71% with transfusions.鈥濃€擜nnals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, March 1989.
What do such studies suggest regarding transfusions? In his article 鈥淏lood Transfusions and Surgery for Cancer,鈥?Dr.聽John S.聽Spratt concluded: 鈥淭he cancer surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon.鈥濃€擳he American Journal of Surgery, September 1986.
Another primary task of your immune system is to defend against infection. So it is understandable that some studies show that patients receiving blood are more prone to infection. Dr.聽P.聽I.聽Tartter did a study of colorectal surgery. Of patients given transfusions, 25聽percent developed infections, compared with 4 percent of those who received no transfusions. He reports: 鈥淏lood transfusions were associated with infectious complications when given pre-, intra-, or postoperatively .聽.聽. The risk of postoperative infection increased progressively with the number of units of blood given.鈥?(The British Journal of Surgery, August 1988) Those attending a 1989 meeting of the American Association of Blood Banks learned this: Whereas 23 percent of those who received donor blood during hip-replacement surgery developed infections, those given no blood had no infections at all.
Dr.聽John A.聽Collins wrote concerning this effect of blood transfusions: 鈥淚t would be ironic indeed if a 鈥榯reatment鈥?which has very little evidence of accomplishing anything worthwhile should subsequently be found to intensify one of the main problems faced by such patients.鈥濃€擶orld Journal of Surgery, February 1987.
DISEASE FREE OR FRAUGHT WITH DANGER?
Blood-borne disease worries conscientious physicians and many patients. Which disease? Frankly, you cannot limit it just to one; there are indeed many.
After discussing the more well-known diseases, Techniques of Blood Transfusion (1982) addresses 鈥渙ther transfusion-associated infectious diseases,鈥?such as syphilis, cytomegalovirus聽infection, and malaria. It then says: 鈥淪everal other diseases have also been reported to be transmitted by blood transfusion, including herpes virus infections, infectious mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr virus), toxoplasmosis, trypanosomiasis [African sleeping sickness and Chagas鈥?disease], leishmaniasis, brucellosis [undulant fever], typhus, filariasis, measles, salmonellosis, and Colorado tick fever.鈥?br>
Actually, the list of such diseases is growing. You may have read headlines such as 鈥淟yme Disease From a Transfusion? It鈥檚 Unlikely, but Experts Are Wary.鈥?How safe is blood from someone testing positive for Lyme disease? A panel of health officials were asked if they would accept such blood. 鈥淎ll of them answered no, although no one recommended discarding blood from such donors.鈥?How should the public feel about banked blood that experts themselves would not accept?鈥擳he New York Times, July 18, 1989.
A second reason for concern is that blood collected in one land where a certain disease abounds may be used far away, where neither the public nor the physicians are alert to the danger. With today鈥檚 increase in travel, including refugees and immigrants, the risk is growing that a strange disease may be in a blood product.
Moreover, a specialist in infectious diseases warned: 鈥淭he blood supply may have to be screened to prevent transmission of several disorders that were not previously considered infectious, including leukemia, lymphoma, and dementia [or Alzheimer鈥檚 disease].鈥濃€擳ransfusion Medicine Reviews, January 1989.
Chilling as these risks are, others have created much wider fear.
THE AIDS PANDEMIC
鈥淎IDS has changed forever the way doctors and patients think about blood. And that鈥檚 not a bad idea, said the doctors gathered at the National Institutes of Health for a conference on blood transfusion.鈥濃€擶ashington Post, July 5, 1988.
The AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) pandemic has, with a vengeance, awakened people to the danger of acquiring infectious diseases from blood. Millions are now infected. It is spreading out of control. And its death rate is virtually 100 percent.
AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can be spread by blood. The modern plague of AIDS came to light in 1981. The very next year, health experts learned that the virus could probably be passed on in blood products. It is now admitted that the blood industry was slow to respond, even after tests were available to identify blood containing HIV antibodies. Testing of donor blood finally began in 1985, but even then it was not applied to blood products that were already on the shelf.
Thereafter the public was assured, 鈥楾he blood supply is now safe.鈥?Later, however, it was revealed that there is a dangerous 鈥渨indow period鈥?for AIDS. After a person is infected, it could be months before he produces detectable antibodies. Unaware that he harbors the virus, he might donate blood that would test negative. This has happened. People have developed AIDS after being transfused with such blood!
The picture got even grimmer. The New England Journal of Medicine (June 1, 1989) reported on 鈥淪ilent HIV Infections.鈥?It was established that people can carry the AIDS virus for years without its being detectable by current indirect tests. Some would like to minimize these as rare cases, but they prove 鈥渢hat the risk of AIDS transmission via blood and its components cannot be totally eliminated.鈥?(Patient Care, November 30, 1989) The disturbing conclusion: A negative test cannot be read as a clean bill of health. How many will yet get AIDS from blood?
THE NEXT SHOE? OR SHOES?
Many apartment dwellers have heard the thump of one shoe hitting the floor above them; they may then get tense awaiting the second. In the blood dilemma, no one knows how many deadly shoes may still hit.
The AIDS virus was designated HIV, but some experts now call it HIV-1. Why? Because they found another virus of the AIDS type (HIV-2). It can cause AIDS symptoms and is widespread in some areas. Moreover, it 鈥渋s not consistently detected by the AIDS tests now in use here,鈥?reports The New York Times. (June 27, 1989) 鈥淭he new findings .聽.聽. make it more difficult for blood banks to be sure a donation is safe.鈥?br>
Or what of distant relatives to the AIDS virus? A presidential commission (U.S.A.) said that one such virus 鈥渋s believed to be the cause of adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma and a severe neurological disease.鈥?This virus is already in the blood donor population and can be spread in blood. People have a right to wonder, 鈥楬ow effective is the blood-bank screening for such other viruses?鈥?br>
Really, only time will tell how many blood-borne viruses are lurking in the blood supply. 鈥淭he unknown may be more cause for concern than the known,鈥?writes Dr.聽Harold T.聽Meryman. 鈥淭ransmissible viruses with incubation times measured in many years will be difficult to associate with transfusions and even more difficult to detect. The HTLV group is surely only the first of these to surface.鈥?(Transfusion Medicine Reviews, July 1989) 鈥淎s if the AIDS epidemic were not misery enough, .聽.聽. a number of newly proposed or described risks of transfusion have drawn attention during the 1980鈥檚. It does not require great imagination to predict that other serious viral diseases exist and are transmitted by homologous transfusions.鈥濃€擫imiting Homologous Exposure: Alternative Strategies, 1989.
So many 鈥渟hoes鈥?have already dropped that the Centers for Disease Control recommends 鈥渦niversal precautions.鈥?That is, 鈥榟ealth-care workers should assume that all patients are infectious for HIV and other blood-borne pathogens.鈥?With good reason, health-care workers and members of the public are reassessing their view of blood.
[Footnotes]
We cannot assume that all blood is yet being tested. For example, it is reported that by the start of 1989, about 80 percent of Brazil鈥檚 blood banks were not under government control, nor were they testing for AIDS.
[Box on page 8]
鈥淎pproximately 1 in 100 transfusions are accompanied by fever, chills, or urticaria [hives]. .聽.聽. Approximately 1 in 6,000 red cell transfusions results in a hemolytic transfusion reaction. This is a severe immunologic reaction that may occur acutely or in a delayed fashion some days after the transfusion; it may result in acute [kidney] failure, shock, intravascular coagulation, and even death.鈥濃€擭ational Institutes of Health (NIH) conference, 1988.
[Box on page 9]
Danish scientist Niels Jerne shared the 1984 Nobel Prize for Medicine. When asked why he refused a blood transfusion, he said: 鈥淎 person鈥檚 blood is like his fingerprints鈥攖here are no two types of blood that are exactly alike.鈥?br>
[Box on page 10]
BLOOD, RUINED LIVERS, AND .聽.聽.
鈥淚ronically, blood-borne AIDS .聽.聽. has never been as great a threat as other diseases鈥攈epatitis, for instance,鈥?explained the Washington Post.
Yes, vast numbers have got very sick and have died from such hepatitis, which has no specific treatment. According to U.S.News & World Report (May 1, 1989), about 5 percent of those given blood in the United States get hepatitis鈥?75,000 people a year. About half become chronic carriers, and at least 1 in 5 develop cirrhosis or cancer of the liver. It is estimated that 4,000 die. Imagine the headlines you would read if a jumbo jet crashed, killing all aboard. But 4,000 deaths amount to a full jumbo jet crashing every month!
Physicians had long known that a milder hepatitis (type A) was spread through unclean food or water. Then they saw that a more serious form was spreading through blood, and they had no way to screen blood for it. Eventually, brilliant scientists learned how to detect 鈥渇ootprints鈥?of this virus (type B). By the early 1970鈥檚, blood was being screened in some lands. The blood supply appeared safe and the future for blood bright! Or was it?
Before long it was clear that thousands who were given screened blood still developed hepatitis. Many, after debilitating illness, learned that their livers were ruined. But if the blood had been tested, why was this happening? The blood contained another form, called non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANB). For a decade it plagued transfusions鈥攂etween 8 and 17 percent of those transfused in Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and the United States contracted it.
Then came headlines such as 鈥淢ysterious Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B Virus Isolated at Last鈥? 鈥淏reaking a Fever in the Blood.鈥?Again, the message was, 鈥楾he elusive agent is found!鈥?In April 1989, the public was told that a test was available for NANB, now being called hepatitis C.
You might wonder if this relief is premature. In fact, Italian researchers have reported another hepatitis virus, a mutant, which might be responsible for a third of the cases. 鈥淪ome authorities,鈥?the Harvard Medical School Health Letter (November 1989) observed, 鈥渨orry that A, B, C, and D are not the whole alphabet of hepatitis viruses; yet others may emerge.鈥?The New York Times (February 13, 1990) stated: 鈥淓xperts strongly suspect that other viruses can cause hepatitis; if discovered, they will be designated hepatitis E and so on.鈥?br>
Are blood banks faced with more long searches for tests to make blood safe? Citing the problem of cost, a director of the American Red Cross made this disturbing comment: 鈥淲e can鈥檛 just keep adding test after test for each infectious agent that might be spread.鈥濃€擬edical World News, May 8, 1989.
Even the test for hepatitis B is fallible; many still contract it from blood. Moreover, will people be satisfied with the announced test for hepatitis C? The Journal of the American Medical Association (January 5, 1990) showed that a year can pass before antibodies of the disease are detectable by the test. Meanwhile, people transfused with the blood may face ruined livers鈥攁nd death.
[Box/Picture on page 11]
Chagas鈥?disease illustrates how blood carries disease to distant people. 鈥淭he Medical Post鈥?(January 16, 1990) reports that 鈥?0-12 million people in Latin America are chronically infected.鈥?It has been called 鈥渙ne of the most important transfusion hazards in South America.鈥?An 鈥渁ssassin bug鈥?bites a sleeping victim in the face, sucks blood, and defecates in the wound. The victim may carry Chagas鈥?disease for years (meanwhile possibly donating blood) before developing fatal heart complications.
Why should that concern people on distant continents? In 鈥淭he New York Times鈥?(May 23, 1989), Dr.聽L.聽K.聽Altman reported on patients with posttransfusion Chagas鈥?disease, one of whom died. Altman wrote: 鈥淎dditional cases may have gone undetected because [doctors here] are not familiar with Chagas鈥?disease, nor do they realize that it could be spread by transfusions.鈥?Yes, blood can be a vehicle by which diseases travel widely.
[Box on page 12]
Dr.聽Knud Lund-Olesen wrote: 鈥淪ince .聽.聽. some persons in high-risk groups volunteer as donors because they are then automatically tested for AIDS, I feel that there is reason to be reluctant about accepting blood transfusion. Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses have refused this for many years. Did they look into the future?鈥濃€斺€淯geskrift for L忙ger鈥?(Doctors鈥?Weekly), September 26, 1988.
[Picture on page 9]
The pope survived being shot. After leaving the hospital, he was taken back for two months, 鈥渟uffering a great deal.鈥?Why? A potentially fatal cytomegalovirus infection from the blood he received
[Credit Line]
UPI/Bettmann Newsphotos
[Picture on page 12]
AIDS virus
[Credit Line]
CDC, Atlanta, Ga.
Preservation by Obedience to God鈥檚 Law on Blood
LIFE or death鈥攖he choice is yours! But what will determine your choice? Faced with a crisis that involves your life, will you guide your course by the principles found in the Word of God? Or, if that course seems to put your immediate life prospects in peril, will you rather submit to the coercion of men who urge you to set aside the law of God?鈥擠eut. 30:19, 20; Matt. 16:25.
Early Christians refused to compromise. Their fearless preaching of the Word of God brought them into conflict with the Roman world. Since the Christians did not esteem what the Romans considered honorable, their viewpoint was not to be tolerated. Yet it was no glory to Rome simply to destroy them. If only they could be made to recant. With the Roman judges it became their objective, not to have them executed, but to force them by deeds to show that they had abandoned their Christian faith. 鈥淚f they consented to cast a few grains of incense upon the altar [in worship of the national gods], they were dismissed from the tribunal in safety and with applause.鈥?In his endeavor to cause the prisoners鈥?emotions to override their Christian convictions, the judge 鈥渟et before their eyes every circumstance which could render life more pleasing, or death more terrible; and to solicit, nay, to entreat them, that they would show some compassion to themselves, to their families, and to their friends.鈥?br>
Nor was the offering of incense to the emperor the only transgression that they sought to induce these Christian witnesses to commit. In speaking out against the practices of the Roman world of his day, the Christian writer Tertullian says: 鈥淟et your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals鈥?blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.鈥?So well was it known that Christians would not consume blood that even in ancient Rome a violation of this principle on the part of a Christian was considered to be a renunciation of the Christian faith.
Would it not have been a small thing to offer just a pinch of incense to the emperor? Would it really have been such a terrible transgression for a Christian to take a little blood? Early Christians knew that their choice meant life or death. Holding fast to their integrity would assure them the favor of the Life-giver, their God in heaven, and deliverance from death itself by a resurrection to eternal life.鈥擬att. 24:13.
In their faith they were like the witnesses of Jehovah who had gone before them. Of them it is written: 鈥淢en were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection. Yes, others received their trial by mockings and scourgings, indeed, more than that, by bonds and prisons.鈥?God did not prevent their being imprisoned, beaten and even done to death. Yet their faith did not waver. They did not expect to be preserved from trials at the hands of God鈥檚 enemies. Their desire was to be preserved in the memory of God by obedience to his commandments, that they might attain the reward of life in the world to come. With strong faith, they refused to be swayed by the coercion of men who urged them to set aside the law of God.鈥擧eb. 11:35-38; 1聽Cor. 10:13.
The need for such faith has not lessened in this modern world. The divine commandments are not different for us today than they were for the early Christians. The pressure from the world, whether in the form of brutality or persuasive argument, has not abated. God鈥檚 law against idolatry is still upheld by Christians; so is his mandate forbidding the consumption of blood.
GOD鈥橲 LAW ON BLOOD
Just what does the Bible say about the use of blood? Immediately after the flood of Noah鈥檚 day, over 4,300 years ago, Jehovah God blessed Noah and his sons, whom He had preserved, and with that blessing he included his mandate on blood, saying: 鈥淓very creeping animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul鈥攊ts blood鈥攜ou must not eat.鈥?(Gen. 9:3, 4) This divine requirement was emphasized repeatedly to the nation of Israel. Again and again they were told that they must abstain from blood. 鈥淪imply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh. You must not eat it. You should pour it out upon the ground as water. You must not eat it, in order that it may go well with you and your sons after you, because you will do what is right in Jehovah鈥檚 eyes.鈥?Willful violators of this God-given law were put to death.鈥擠eut. 12:23-25; Lev. 17:14.
The prohibition on the consumption of blood did not pass away with the law covenant. It was no mere dietary law of the Jews. It is applicable to all the descendants of Noah, all mankind. Therefore, it was appropriate that in the very first century of the existence of the Christian congregation its governing body should emphasize the importance of the matter and draw it to the attention of all believers again: 鈥淔or the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.鈥?(Acts 15:28, 29) Yes, it is necessary for Christians to keep themselves free from blood. That decree, motivated by God鈥檚 holy spirit, his active force, did not limit the scope of the prohibition to animal blood or to the taking of blood through the mouth. The terminology was all-embracing: 鈥淜eep yourselves free .聽.聽. from blood.鈥?br>
Inasmuch as the prohibition covered the drinking of animal blood, even more so did it outlaw practices such as rushing into the Roman arena to suck out the blood of the vanquished gladiators, as was done in those days. And since the prohibition is of equal force in the lives of Christians today, not only does it involve such practices as drinking the blood of freshly slaughtered animals and eating blood pudding and blood sausage, but it also makes it unlawful to appropriate the lifeblood of another human to sustain one鈥檚 own life.
MODERN-DAY EXAMPLES OF OBEDIENCE
Illustrative of the situations faced almost daily in all parts of the world by those conforming to God鈥檚 law on blood is the case of twenty-year-old Hannie in the Netherlands. Since she was eleven she has suffered from hemolytic anemia, a condition in which the spleen destroys an excessive number of red blood corpuscles, resulting in a shortage of oxygen to the body cells and causing the skin to take on a yellowish color.
When Hannie turned nineteen the attacks returned after a relaxation of a few years and increased in severity. Finally a specialist in blood diseases advised the father that the spleen should be removed. The operation, the father was told, might require blood transfusions, but the father explained that as a Christian he could not do otherwise than object to the use of blood in this way, since the Word of God forbids the feeding of blood into the body, whether by the mouth or by any other means that has been devised by science.
About half a year later Hannie fell seriously ill. Her temperature rose to 105 degrees Fahrenheit. From day to day her condition got worse. The surgeon in attendance urged a blood transfusion. But he knew the viewpoint of the parents and the girl and did not force the matter, saying: 鈥淚n most cases one rescinds such a decision at the last moment.鈥?When the patient鈥檚 condition further deteriorated the father called the specialist and urged him to do all that was possible, but without the use of blood transfusion. An hour later the ambulance rolled up in front of the house and the girl was taken to the hospital.
At the hospital the doctors asserted that if blood transfusions were not given, the girl would die at any moment, but in spite of both medical arguments and derogatory accusations designed to cause the parents鈥?emotions to override their convictions, they failed to shake the deep-seated faith of the family in the rightness of God鈥檚 law prohibiting the use of blood. Although the patient was desperately weak and in need of sympathetic consideration, repeated efforts were made to cause her to waver in her decision and to set aside at this crucial time her confidence in the laws of God, around which she had built her life. She relates the experience herself:
鈥淒uring the night I relapsed into a deep unconsciousness, and as I was in a dying condition my parents were summoned to the hospital. All my reactions had fallen out, even to the point that artificial respiration had to be applied, as I could not breathe. Since I had not eaten or had anything to drink for several days, it was necessary to feed my body by infusion. Although the worst did not come, my condition remained serious and one was prepared for anything .聽.聽. All efforts were made to get my parents and my brother and my fianc茅 to change their minds. Then they advised the physician to ask me himself. .聽.聽. I could see the face of the doctor and could smell the revolting tobacco scent as he bent over me and placed the question: 鈥楪irl, you still have a small chance to remain alive .聽.聽. if you do not accept a transfusion you will be dead this evening. Do you want the transfusion?鈥?I flatly refused, not once but seven times.鈥?br>
Medical science finally bowed before Christian integrity. The operation was performed, and, thanks to the body鈥檚 own God-given recuperative powers, the skill of the surgeon, the devoted care of the nurses and the strong will of the patient to live, Hannie pulled through without a blood transfusion. More important to her, she had not broken her integrity to God.
Another incident occurred a few months ago in Los Angeles, California. A young woman, a Witness, and her two young children were involved in an automobile accident that instantly snuffed out the life of her two-year-old son and left her in critical condition. On her arrival at the hospital, the giving of a blood transfusion almost immediately became an issue. Although she was only semiconscious, she made it clear that she wanted no blood, and when her husband arrived he too refused to consent to a breaking of this law of God. Reports an eyewitness: 鈥淚f I hadn鈥檛 been at the hospital just about around the clock during those days and heard the language of the doctors, and observed the constant pressure they put on this young sister and her husband I don鈥檛 think that I would have believed it. They were unmerciful and unyielding in their badgering of these two poor brothers. They called the husband 鈥榢iller,鈥?鈥榤urderer,鈥?鈥榠gnorant beast,鈥?and all of this loud enough to be heard throughout the whole section of the hospital. The young sister was told repeatedly that she was dying and only blood would save her. In my own mind I don鈥檛 think that they gave her the opportunity to live, for she was kept in a state of fear day and night by both doctors and nurses. Every attempt made by myself or others of the brothers to reason with these doctors met with loud emotional outbursts.鈥?Within a few days the sister died. Would blood have saved her? That is something no doctor could guarantee. It most assuredly is not the only treatment available, nor is it without its own deadly hazards.
Newspapers everywhere have reported on cases such as these in emotion-charged terms, casting the doctor who urges blood in the role of lifesaver and the one who refuses the treatment as a fanatic. During time of war, patriots consider it an honor for a man to die for his country. But how many view it as an honor for a man to be willing to die, if necessary, for refusal to break his integrity to God? More often, they copy the example of the pagan Roman judges who sought to override Christian principles by emotional appeal.
It should not be concluded that these devoted Christians turn their backs on all medical aid and that there is no other treatment that can be administered. There are countless cases in which patients have been turned away by surgeons who refused to operate without blood, but other doctors have been located who have been willing to perform the operations, and have done so successfully鈥攚ithout blood. In many cases there has been considerable blood loss, but plasma volume expanders, often called 鈥渂lood substitutes,鈥?have been used, and these have made it possible to keep up the blood pressure until the body could compensate for the blood loss through its own mechanism. Often it has called for more skill and greater care to operate without the use of blood, but, more than that, it has called for a doctor who was willing to respect the religious convictions of his patient and still do everything in his power to help. There are doctors in increasing numbers throughout the world who, on coming to recognize the inherent dangers of blood transfusion and particularly on coming to appreciate the sincerity of the religious convictions of their patients who refuse blood, have been willing to treat these cases.
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE INCREASES BLOOD HAZARD
In view of the position taken by the medical profession in general in regard to blood transfusions, it is of interest to consider the medical side of the issue.
Doctors in general view blood transfusions as lifesaving. Even those who write on the abuses practiced generally emphasize that, from a medical viewpoint, much good has been done. But can it be said, even from a medical standpoint, that blood transfusions are completely safe and that only good can result from them?
Medical journals themselves score the attitude of doctors who liberally dispense blood. Said the head of the Law Department of the American Medical Association, in the June, 1960, issue of the Medicolegal Digest: 鈥淭he technique of blood transfusion has become so routine that some physicians tend to disregard the inherent dangers which accompany blood and plasma transfusions. Too many physicians have the mistaken impression that a blood transfusion is as safe as an intravenous infusion of glucose or normal saline solution.鈥?br>
Blood is a highly complex part of the human body and its use by doctors in transfusion has called for the greatest of care and extensive knowledge of blood itself and the reactions that can occur when it is introduced into the body of another person, if they are to avoid severe complications, even death. But have doctors all kept up with that important information? Says Paul I. Hoxworth, M.D. and Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, in the Bulletin of the American Association of Blood Banks, for March, 1960: 鈥淭he increased use of blood transfusion in recent years has had the strange effect that most clinicians know less rather than more about the subject, simply because its growing complexity has thrust it into the province of specialized knowledge. The physician who orders blood for a patient cannot be expected to be well versed in all aspects of this knowledge .聽.聽. [Yet] blood transfusion is a risk which can be calculated only with knowledge of the dangers.鈥?br>
Even a thorough knowledge of everything that the medical profession has learned on the subject cannot remove the hazards. Says The Medical Journal of Australia, of September 24, 1960: 鈥淭he problem is really that, in spite of all the advances in blood-grouping and blood-transfusion techniques, there is no entirely satisfactory cross-matching test for all circumstances, and the dilemma of the pathologist cannot be readily solved.鈥?In a similar vein, showing that the procedure of blood transfusion involves matters that no doctor fully understands, Britain鈥檚 highly respected medical journal, The Lancet, reports: 鈥淭roubles are cropping up which we cannot explain. In spite of all precautions some patients react unfavourably to transfusions which are correctly administered.鈥?br>
TRANSFUSIONS CAUSE DEATH AND DISEASE
Emphasizing the dangers involved is a report from the Fifth International Congress of Blood Transfusion, which reported on a case as follows: 鈥淎 patient who had been operated on for a simple ovarian cyst and whose recovery had been uneventful was about to be discharged from the hospital. The physician noted a slight pallor and a complete blood count revealed a low-grade, secondary anemia. He explained to the patient that she could go home that afternoon if she wished, but that it would then be necessary for him, at his office, to treat the anemia, probably for a period of 6 months. He further stated that if, however, she would stay in the hospital one additional day and receive a blood transfusion, she would most likely not need any further treatment. She chose the latter course. Laboratory examination showed that her blood was group B Rh-positive, and 500 cc. of group B Rh-positive were ordered and admittedly received, cross-matched, declared compatible and administered. By that evening the patient鈥檚 temperature was 106掳聽F. and by the next morning she was jaundiced and had anuria. Within 24 hours she was dead.鈥?br>
For those who escape death due to severe transfusion reactions, only the first hurdle has been passed. Disease may lie ahead. Syphilis, malaria, hepatitis and other diseases can be transmitted by blood. Not only can they be transmitted by blood, but they have been transmitted in this way, and even today cases are reported in which they are being transmitted by blood transfusions. Yes, there are tests that can be performed to determine whether the blood is safe, but the tests are not infallible, nor are those who check the results. Most blood banks do not ask donors if they have syphilis because it is an embarrassing question; if the donor knew he might lie about it; even the laboratory tests do not always register the danger. As for malaria, the possibility is considered remote in most places, so little is done to check for it. Even if a check is made, it may not be caught. And in those parts of the earth where it is a very present danger so many of the donors would have to be rejected if this were taken into account that there would not be sufficient blood; so doctors often feel that the best thing is to give the blood and then treat the malaria. Concerning serum hepatitis, transmitted in regular blood and plasma transfusions, Today鈥檚 Health, October, 1960, says that it 鈥渋s transmitted from donors to recipients on the average of once in every 200 transfusions of whole blood. 鈥楴o laboratory test is known which will detect donors who are carriers of the hepatitis virus,鈥?says John B. Alsever, M.D., medical director of the Southwest Blood Banks, Phoenix, Arizona. 鈥楾he donor鈥檚 history cannot be relied upon to exclude carriers, partly because of possible willful concealment or poor memory, but principally because most are innocent carriers who never have had a clinically diagnosable illness.鈥欌€?br>
WISDOM OF OBEYING DIVINE LAW
These statements from medical journals make it clear that blood transfusions cannot be acclaimed as completely safe lifesaving treatments. Medical experience testifies to the fact that in forbidding man鈥檚 use of blood Almighty God, the Creator of man, the great Physician who understands the operation of man鈥檚 body as no human doctor ever will, was not only requiring obedience of man, but for those obeying that law he was providing preservation from the numerous ills that have come upon men as a direct result of the use of blood.
Doctors may argue that the risk is worth it if there is some chance that a life can be saved. Religious leaders may join their plea, contending that the law of God does not apply where life is involved. Both are wrong. When death impends is no time to vacillate or to turn one鈥檚 back on God. It is a time to put complete confidence in the One in whose hands lies the power of life. It is a time when all other persons, whether doctors or friends or relatives, can show their sincere love for the patient and their fear of God by encouraging the patient to hold fast his faith, not to fear, but to put his trust in God Almighty.
Faithful Christians call to mind the accusation of the Devil, who said: 鈥淪kin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his life.鈥?(Job 2:4, margin) He contended that no one would maintain faith in God and obedience to His law if it put his life in jeopardy. But the Devil is a liar, and God-fearing Christians in all parts of the earth daily prove him so by obedience to the divine law on abstinence from blood. For their faithfulness God will preserve them, even if they die, by raising them to eternal life in his righteous new world.
[Footnotes]
History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, pp. 234, 235.
Tertullian鈥檚 Apology.
See Blood Transfusion and Clinical Medicine (P. L. Mollison); The Lancet, August 27, 1960; Surgery and Clinical Pathology in the Tropics (C. Bowesman); Nursing Times (England), January 17, 1958; Physiologie und Klinik der Bluttransfusion (2d Edition, 1960; published in Jena, Germany).
Acts 15:29:29聽to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!鈥?/div>
Source(s):
www.watchtower.org |
