Medical Treatment With Blood—An Emotional Issue
PEOPLE are inclined to look at currently popular medical treatment as scientific, as the only way to treat an ailment. There may be strong criticism of a person who chooses a treatment that is not in vogue, or if he refuses the popular one. That person may even be vilified and persecuted.
To illustrate: For centuries bloodletting was a popular medical practice. Bleeding, it was believed, drew off bad blood and helped the sick person to recover. This was accepted medical treatment up to and including much of the last century. “Bloodletting was to an incredible degree in favor,” wrote Dr. Alonzo Jay Shadman in his book Who Is Your Doctor and Why?
As a result of this medical treatment, many suffered and died, including the first president of the United States, George Washington. He developed an infection of the upper part of the windpipe (evidently it was a strep throat) and died in December 1799. “The physicians of George Washington bled him to death,” Dr. Shadman claims.
At the time, Washington’s physicians were not criticized. Nor were they criticized during much of the following century. But what about those who, during the last century, began to question the value of bloodletting?
They were maligned and persecuted. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, called by The Encyclopædia Britannica “the most eminent practical physician of his time in Germany,” favored the then-popular medical treatment of bloodletting. In 1830 he said: “Anyone who neglected to draw blood when a man was in danger of suffocating in his own blood (this was the idea regarding inflammatory fevers) was a murderer by omission.”
Yet today, physicians of that time are characterized as the ‘murderers,’ having ‘bled Washington to death.’ In current medical practice giving blood, not taking it, has become a popular treatment. In fact, persons who have refused blood transfusions for family members have been characterized as ‘murderers.’ Thus medical treatment involving blood is again an emotional issue.
Is It the Answer?
The pendulum has now swung so that blood is routinely transfused into patients, as though it were a cure-all. But it is not! Instead, it may worsen one’s condition, or even kill. “Within the last decade, an estimated 30,000 people have died of serum hepatitis [transmitted by blood transfusion],” notes Family Health of March 1977, “and thousands more have had their livers irreparably damaged by contaminated blood transfusions.”
Blood transfusions are also responsible for transmitting many other diseases that sicken and kill thousands every year. In addition, many patients have adverse transfusion reactions, which are sometimes fatal. “In the Miami [Florida] area,” notes Dr. Charles Gilpin, “about one out of every 10 transfusions produces some kind of reaction.”
So how great are the dangers? The Southern Medical Journal of April 1976 suggested that the estimate of “between 3,000 and 30,000 deaths attributable to transfusions” each year is probably a conservative estimate. Yet these figures are only for one country—the United States! Therefore, can you blame informed persons for being hesitant about taking blood transfusions?
Obviously, however, if too much blood is lost, a person will die. Blood transfusions, most doctors say, can save such persons who would otherwise die. Although this may be true, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to take blood transfusions. The reason is that they view this Bible command to Christians seriously: “Keep abstaining . . . from blood.” (Acts 15:28, 29) Obedience to this command has at times put them at odds with popular medical treatment, creating an emotional issue.
However, there are alternative forms of treatment, and these do not pose the dangers that blood transfusions do. Jehovah’s Witnesses accept such medical procedures, which have often proved lifesaving. Many medical doctors may feel that they are fully informed on the matter of blood, but they may not have all the facts. Consider the experience of a former chief of staff of a Texas hospital.