An “Exclusion Clause” Recommended

Dear Brethren:

The May 1st and 15th Watchtowers on blood transfusion move me to write of my recent experience while on duty as a special nurse in one of the large hospitals.

On the 13th post operative day, it was determined to subject this patient to blood washing, consisting of withdrawing two pints of blood and replacing it with two other pints. This operation was performed in the room by internes on laboratory service and repeated on the following day, when this amazing incident occurred.

Let those who think there is no danger to the donor take heed. At this second blood-stream flushing while withdrawing the second pint of blood, the flow from patient to vacuum bottle suddenly and unexplainably reversed itself, and when noticed a column of air was about to enter the vein. The doctor quickly disconnected the tube at the needle, and on reconnecting it behaved normally for a few minutes but then reversed again and the doctors abandoned the attempt to withdraw more, replacing rapidly with other blood. This patient who had previously received thirteen pints of blood, eight of which were on the day and first night of operation, died on the 16th post operative day in spite of or because of receiving a total of seventeen pints of strange blood. Many veins were occluded and riddled as a sieve by almost continuous puncturing for laboratory test and feedings of blood or glucose.

Be it known that it is becoming more prevalent to give blood transfusions during quite simple operations, and the only knowledge the patient may have of it is when asked to have friends and relatives replace it in the blood bank. To avoid this an exclusion clause should be inserted in the hospital release contract before signing for operation. I carry identification card in my wallet marked “No blood transfusion” in red ink and bearing my signature.

Theocratically yours,