- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDriving your car is dangerous; do you know how many people die on the roads in the UK - it's a disgrace.
not convinced of the dangers yet,
The WA health system will become the first in the world to adopt a "bloodless surgery" policy that could significantly reduce the use of blood transfusions and save the State tens of millions of dollars.
The pioneering approach, known as patient blood management, is used at Fremantle Hospital - reducing its us ...[text shortened]... eah he said it!
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/9123230/wa-pioneers-bloodless-surgery/
Abstain from driving everyone!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSimon Towler's comments are interesting. I might look into the approach he advocates once it becomes available where I live. Do you agree with Dr Américo Valério's 1961 comments about blood, as quoted in the "Watchtower" magazine?
Chief medical officer Simon Towler there was good evidence the new approach was safer for patients and led to faster recovery and shorter stays in hospital.
sigh still not convinced,
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in receiving transfusions or blood products. Many have come to Cleveland Clinic over the years to take advantage of its expertise in blood-sparing surgery.
“We have what we call a Jehovah’s Witness care plan,” says cardiothoracic anesthesiologist Colleen Koch, MD. “These patients are treated differently from our routine cardiac surgery patients — before, during and after surgery.”
This has given Cleveland Clinic a strong database from which to draw conclusions about its safety and efficacy. Dr. Koch co-authored a study of this data recently published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. They found that extreme blood management does not put one at risk for additional complications. In fact, patients undergoing blood sparing surgery had fewer acute complications and shorter times in the hospital than comparable patients who received blood. “Should we be doing this for all our patients?” asks Dr. Koch.
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2012/07/no-blood-may-be-better/
Did Dr. Koch say, 'patients undergoing blood sparing surgery had fewer acute complications and shorter times in the hospital than comparable patients who received blood' yeah he said it!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat about Dr Américo Valério's 1961 comments about blood, as quoted in the "Watchtower" magazine?
sigh still not convinced,
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in receiving transfusions or blood products. Many have come to Cleveland Clinic over the years to take advantage of its expertise in blood-sparing surgery.
“We have what we call a Jehovah’s Witness care plan,” says cardiothoracic anesthesiologist Colleen Koch, MD. “These patients are ...[text shortened]... and shorter times in the hospital than comparable patients who received blood' yeah he said it!
Sigh, still not convinced,
Blood Transfusions May Have Killed Millions
http://jonbarron.org/article/blood-transfusions-may-have-killed-millions#.VCPdT-Sc3VM
the FACTS!
Transfusions increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates
Transfusions increase the risk of stroke
a more up to date evaluation of non infectious errors in transfusion,
Background
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of transfusion errors occurring at a large teaching hospital and aims to determine key errors that are threatening transfusion safety, despite implementation of safety measures.
Study Design and Methods
Errors were prospectively identified from 2005 to 2010. Error data were coded on a secure online database called the Transfusion Error Surveillance System. Errors were defined as any deviation from established standard operating procedures. Errors were identified by clinical and laboratory staff. Denominator data for volume of activity were used to calculate rates.
Results
A total of 15,134 errors were reported with a median number of 215 errors per month (range, 85-334). Overall, 9083 (60 percent) errors occurred on the transfusion service and 6051 (40 percent) on the clinical services. In total, 23 errors resulted in patient harm: 21 of these errors occurred on the clinical services and two in the transfusion service. Of the 23 harm events, 21 involved inappropriate use of blood. Errors with no harm were 657 times more common than events that caused harm. The most common high-severity clinical errors were sample labeling (37.5 percent) and inappropriate ordering of blood (28.8 percent). The most common high-severity error in the transfusion service was sample accepted despite not meeting acceptance criteria (18.3 percent). The cost of product and component loss due to errors was $593,337.
Conclusion
Errors occurred at every point in the transfusion process, with the greatest potential risk of patient harm resulting from inappropriate ordering of blood products and errors in sample labeling.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/trf.12240/abstract
Did Manny say 'dangerous'? yeah he said it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have known dozens of people who have had blood transfusions including my wife (it saved my unborn son's life too) and three of her siblings, my father in law, my mother back in Britain, and many more besides. None of them died and in most cases it saved their life ~ simple as that. What is the ratio ~ in your estimation, seeing as you seem to have investigated the topic ~ between people who get blood transfusions and survive and/or live as a result, on one hand, and those who die as a result of the blood transfusion [as opposed to dying of something despite the blood transfusion that sought to save their lives]?
would any of the contributors with the exception of our two resident scourgy windbags care to comment on these rather revealing revelations with regards to the dangers of blood transfusions and survival rates?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA blood transfusion saved my daughters life
would any of the contributors with the exception of our two resident scourgy windbags care to comment on these rather revealing revelations with regards to the dangers of blood transfusions and survival rates?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1 in 205000 those are actually great numbers / odds. I would take those odds. I acknowledge that there is a small inherent risk with receiving blood no argument. However there is risk with almost any medical procedure. I'm also ok with new technologies in blood(less) medicine and parts of blood being used to help treat people. However this doesn't change the fact that blood transfusion is not Food in anyway. There is risk in many things that we do as humans. Drive a car Risk! Walk outside Risk! Breath air Risk! In a perfect world nobody would ever need a blood transfusion.
infact lets look at the facts, shall we,
In fact, the statistics for blood transfusion can be alarming when it comes to health. Heart surgery patients are twice as likely to die during the first 30 days of hospitalization if they receive a blood transfusion for anemia, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Associat ...[text shortened]... ttp://www.mdnews.com/news/2011_04/bloodless-surgery-grows-in-popularity
yes dangerous indeed!
Manny
Originally posted by deennyreally, and what alternatives was she offered? care to comment on the data that has been provided here or shall we simply ignore it on the basis that a blood transfusion saved your daughter life? Let me summarise it for you,
A blood transfusion saved my daughters life
Blood Transfusions May Have Killed Millions
Patients undergoing blood sparing surgery had fewer acute complications and shorter times in the hospital than comparable patients who received blood.
Transfusions increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates
Transfusions increase the risk of stroke
While the hazards of infections have decreased, the dangers of non infectious hazards has actually increased.
Heart bypass patients who receive blood transfusions are also twice as likely to acquire an infection after their operation
16% of patients who received a transfusion developed an infection after their operation, as compared to 7% of patients who did not have a blood transfusion
Heart surgery patients are twice as likely to die during the first 30 days of hospitalization if they receive a blood transfusion
Bloodless surgery was safer for patients and led to faster recovery and shorter stays in hospital.
Originally posted by menace71and yet there is testimony that blood transfusions may have killed millions of people, care to comment on that, or care to comment that doctors are now looking at bloodless surgery as an alternative because its not only safer, more economical but has a greater recovery rate, care to comment that a blood transfusion increases the risk of stroke and is detrimental to recovery, or shall we simply ignore the empirical medical evidence?
1 in 205000 those are actually great numbers / odds. I would take those odds. I acknowledge that there is a small inherent risk with receiving blood no argument. However there is risk with almost any medical procedure. I'm also ok with new technologies in blood(less) medicine and parts of blood being used to help treat people. However this doesn't change t ...[text shortened]... Risk! Breath air Risk! In a perfect world nobody would ever need a blood transfusion.
Manny
The facts again,
Blood Transfusions May Have Killed Millions
Patients undergoing blood sparing surgery had fewer acute complications and shorter times in the hospital than comparable patients who received blood.
Transfusions increase the risk of complications and reduce survival rates
Transfusions increase the risk of stroke
While the hazards of infections have decreased, the dangers of non infectious hazards has actually increased.
Heart bypass patients who receive blood transfusions are also twice as likely to acquire an infection after their operation
16% of patients who received a transfusion developed an infection after their operation, as compared to 7% of patients who did not have a blood transfusion
Heart surgery patients are twice as likely to die during the first 30 days of hospitalization if they receive a blood transfusion
Bloodless surgery was safer for patients and led to faster recovery and shorter stays in hospital.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is the survival rate for blood transfusions?
would any of the contributors with the exception of our two resident scourgy windbags care to comment on these rather revealing revelations with regards to the dangers of blood transfusions and survival rates?