Jehovah's Witness Parents deny daughter "life saving" transplant

[Dave]

These parents could do with our prayers right now...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/parents-deny-daughter-life-saving-transplant-4969178

[Hallett 82]

I read that story this morning (12hrs ago here) and the poor quality journalism made me angry.

The reporter uses the term 'life saving' before the transplant.

That same emotive term is used for blood transfusions too. The girl needs a kidney/liver transplant and her life is at risk. Giving her those organs is not a guarantee of success and her parents have a tough time ahead of them. It is time for our prayers for sure and we all hope they are OK.

It is a sad story but the journalist has a bias that is so embarrassing. Shame on the author of this piece.

[TJ]

Exactly Jan. The journalist (or more likely, the editor) attempts to bias the readers from the outset; you'd assume from the way transfusions are described in these headlines that no one ever dies who receives a blood transfusion and certainly not due to complications from the blood transfusion. Why it's a panacea! But at least these articles are being balanced out more and more with articles showing the advancements being made in bloodless medicine, which is the wave of the future.

In any event, we are holding to the Bible's standard regardless of this world's opinion. My heart goes out to the parents and the little girl and may Jehovah strengthen them.

[Cool Cat]

Why can't they do all those things that help with the blood management side of things like increase her hemoglobin levels and use a cell salvage machine. It sounds like the doctors are not even contemplating any other methods of treatment for the girl. I always thought you could do a kidney transplant without a transfusion. Would it be impossible in this instance to do everything they could to transplant without a transfusion? As they are okay with the transplant just not the transfusion.

[TJ]

Why can't they do all those things that help with the blood management side of things like increase her hemoglobin levels and use a cell salvage machine. It sounds like the doctors are not even contemplating any other methods of treatment for the girl. I always thought you could do a kidney transplant without a transfusion. Would it be impossible in this instance to do everything they could to transplant without a transfusion? As they are okay with the transplant just not the transfusion.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but it seems like in most cases where we hear a positive outcome or advancement in a bloodless procedure, there was one or two hospitals that told the patient previously that it couldn't be done without a transfusion. Doctors enjoy one of the most highly respected positions in the public conciousness, and for good reason, but sometimes they should be viewed more like an auto mechanic where you don't just accept the first opinion without shopping around.

[retroHelen]

The fact that the child has a disease that is not stated shows this report is flawed. You need to know what the disease is to say what treatment would be be necessary. Previous 'non-consent given' transfusions have obviously not worked and may, for all we know, have caused more problems. If the child, as the report states, will die without a transplant within weeks or months, then even court consent may not provide the answer as suitable donors for kidney and liver have to be found and even those who 'go along with anything hospitals want to do' have not all found such donor matches. If it is a genetic disease then near relatives likely cannot donate and this child is not even on a donor list yet.

If the disease is a genetic reaction or to something like Ecoli infection reaction, despite what the reporter says, whatever the medical authorities decide to do, this is a difficult dilemma. Combined Liver/kidney transplants usually indicate that these organs are not making or dealing with blood properly. Transplants in these cases are tricky as the risk for pneumonia/sepsis are higher if the blood is mutated or wrong - even if it is all 'plasma exchanged' according to this medical site where complete plasma exchange is recommended:

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/20/5/940.full

The risks for a child weakened by diseased blood and failing kidney/liver function by both the transfusion and transplant are far greater than the reporter is making out.

It's interesting that writing up after a kidney transplant went wrong, a surgeon notes amongst all the technical data, that the reason the transplant ws rejected was that the kidney was OK, but the blood for transfusion was thought to be a match, but at a sub-level it was probably slightly mismatched (they don't seem to know for sure) and the reactions to the transfusion was all it took for the kidney to be rejected. They concluded that transfusions should be avoided pre-renal transplant to prevent the later reaction:

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/2403.full

Here is a medical site's opinion of bloodless liver transplant:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/431573-overview

Here's no-blood medical article:

http://www.noblood.org/medical-articles-abstracts/2202-recombinant-human-coagulation-factor-viia-jehovahs-witness-patients-liver-transpl/

We know of plenty of examples of people undergoing successful transplants without blood around the world, but this child is very poorly and transfusions have not worked so far. We can but pray in this case. As for the comment at the end that someone knows of cases where parents and church reject those who have had a transfusion, why would we of a child who had no say or choice in the matter? - how ridiculous!

[Dave]

I'm not sure how to change the title of this thread. What I should have done is put the words "life-saving" in parenthesis like so. These aren't my words and I agree with Jan's comments, that phrasing it in this way was misleading on the part of the original author.

Of course, most people's prejudices stem from ignorance and misinformation. In contrast, Jehovah's people are well informed on matters relating to blood and a lot of good work has been done by the HLC in this country.

Several years ago one of our brothers who was passionate about the work of the HLC organized a special fund which gathered enough money to purchase a piece of specialised medical equipment (an Argon Beam Coagulator -ABC) worth about NZ$40,000 at the time. The equipment was donated to the Greenlane hospital in Auckland where a lot of open heart surgeries are performed. It was gratefully received by the hospital and has benefitted many of our brothers and sisters, and many non-witnesses too.

This gesture went a long way to breaking down barriers within the medical community and demonstrated that Jehovah's people are ready to 'put their money where their mouth' is when it comes to their stand on blood. Unfortunately that was just a drop in the bucket compared with what is actually needed. We don't have any 'non-blood medical centers' here like they do in the US and elsewhere. Getting access to such facilities overseas is practically impossible and it usually comes down to funding. Hospitals here won't authorize it as they insist they can do the job... just not without blood.

[Musky]

I'm not sure how to change the title of this thread. What I should have done is put the words "life-saving" in parenthesis like so.

Done

[rocket]

It sound to me like the doctors do not want to have their hands tied so as to have to wait until the last minute to get the court order. With Transplants any doctor who know his stuff will not use Blood Transfusions unless (in their mind) it is the only way to prolong life. Most transplant doctors know that the viruses and blood born diseases common in all blood transfusions make a successfully transplant much more difficult. A common virus that we might think of as not much more than a bad cold can kill the vital organs of a transplant patient because their immune system is brought down to zero. I went through all this with my son's multiple organ transplants a little over a year ago. The doctors refused to consider blood transfusions because of these concerns except as a very last resort. My son was not a child which makes a big difference in getting a court order. To date he has not received a blood transfusion in connection to the transplants.

[Dave]

Very Interesting. Thanks for the info Tilford. How's your son doing now?

[Dave]

Did it involve liver and kidney same as in this case?

[JSellenger]

It sound to me like the doctors do not want to have their hands tied so as to have to wait until the last minute to get the court order. With Transplants any doctor who know his stuff will not use Blood Transfusions unless (in their mind) it is the only way to prolong life. Most transplant doctors know that the viruses and blood born diseases common in all blood transfusions make a successfully transplant much more difficult. A common virus that we might think of as not much more than a bad cold can kill the vital organs of a transplant patient because their immune system is brought down to zero. I went through all this with my son's multiple organ transplants a little over a year ago. The doctors refused to consider blood transfusions because of these concerns except as a very last resort. My son was not a child which makes a big difference in getting a court order. To date he has not received a blood transfusion in connection to the transplants.

A very reasonable response finally. We have to realize that doctors do not want their hands tied, they want to be prepared for whatever happens on the operating table. No good doctor just gives blood for the heck of it, it is typically a "last resort". Just because our beliefs restrict misuse of blood does not mean that doctors who use blood are not intelligent. While we praise the advancements in non-blood surgery, there are risks associated with any surgery. Our stand on blood has nothing to do with medical reasons, it has do do with respect for God's view on blood. Sadly, in this system, it may come with additional risks.

[TJ]

A very reasonable response finally.

Would you care to point out what in the responses above make them not "very reasonable"? I don't see anyone here arguing the opposite of what follows in your post; in fact, the bulk of the criticism has been aimed at the reporting.

[JSellenger]

A very reasonable response finally.

Would you care to point out what in the responses above make them not "very reasonable"? I don't see anyone here arguing the opposite of what follows in your post; in fact, the bulk of the criticism has been aimed at the reporting.

I didn't mean to start a debate. I just feel like some of the comments are saying that just because the article did not specify EVERY single detail of this childs medical condition and the process that the doctors went through, some of the comments seemed to assume that the doctors are either not trying hard enough or are not aware of what is available medically. We have no idea what is going on in the doctors process. I feel no need to personally call out anyone.

We all are very excited when advancements in non-blood treatments are made. However, we have to be realistic. Just because some surgeries, such as transplants in this case have been made without the use of blood, it alone does not suddenly mean that all of these surgeries will go as well. There is a risk that is taken with our stand and we have to realize that. There are many medical benefits to bloodless surgery, and many doctors and governements work towards its advancement, and we look forward to their accomplishments. But only Jehovah will be able to resolve this issue once and for all.

[pnutts]

What gets me about these negative "Reporting" from the land of OZ and Ziwi - is that some of the areas that are leading the way to Patient Blood Management-e.g. Western Australia- the whole state has implemented it-all hospitals and state paid clinics starting in 2008, finished this year except the education part is not finished yet - they still need to get all doctors, nurses, clinic staff, lawyers, judges, etc. informed. New Zealand is also implementing it too. All nations that are members of WHO are mandated by executive and general council order to implement Patient Blood Management-country wide. This was in Jan 2010. They are supposed to update the executive council of WHO every 4 years.

[TJ]

I didn't mean to start a debate. . . . I feel no need to personally call out anyone.

So be it; I much prefer a direct 'calling out' rather than indirect backhanded compliments, which is why I called you out.

I don't see anything above that isn't reasonable. Your observation that we don't know all the details is the whole point of the criticism regarding the reporting of this matter; it doesn't bother to give the crucial details that tells us whether or not these doctors are exhausting other options and it doesn't advance the public awareness of the factors, concientious and otherwise, involved; instead it frames the situation from the outset as the 'lunatic' parents denying their child the "life-saving" panacea that is blood transfusions. And no, I don't make the assumption that all doctors out there will exhaust all options before resorting to blood.

We all are very excited when advancements in non-blood treatments are made. However' date=' we have to be realistic. Just because some surgeries, such as transplants in this case have been made without the use of blood, it alone does not suddenly mean that all of these surgeries will go as well. There is a risk that is taken with our stand and we have to realize that.[/quote']

Who do you see here arguing that bloodless surgeries are without risk? Perhaps you rather stick to generalities, but I think you're attributing views to people here that they don't really hold.

[Dave]

This was another article about this case which I think was reasonably fair and even speaks about the scriptural reasons for our refusing blood transfusions:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10820101

Sadly, as an update to this story (which was not widely publicized as far as I know) this young girl passed away last week.

The only reason I know this is because a sister visiting our congregation today had come to our city to attend the funeral which was held today.

The courts had ruled in favour of transfusing this little girl. However they would not put her on the donor waiting list until a decision was reached. In the mean time her condition deteriorated and she died before they could force a transfusion on her.

This is a very sad story. She was only 2 years old and had spent most of her life in hospital. Her parents, only a young couple have lost their only child and will probably not try again for more children as the risks are too high that a similar thing could happen.