1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Scientist article

Discussion in 'CycleChat Cafe' started by Yellow Fang, 7 May 2008.

  1. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Guru

    I read in New Scientist yesterday that a study revealed Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to accept blood transfusions, have better survival rates after surgery than patients in general. It seems to be something to do with a lot of the blood in blood banks being a bit stale. That means all those years I thought I was helping to save people's lives I was actually helping to kill them. Never mind, it's the thought that counts :blush:
  2. Renard

    Renard Guest

    Sponsored by... Jehova Witnesses :blush:
  3. Night Train

    Night Train Guest

    Maybe it should be supply on demand.
  4. Mister Paul

    Mister Paul Honky

    North Somerset
    But do they have better survival rates during surgery?
  5. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Guru

    Apparently so.
  6. strofiwimple

    strofiwimple Über Member

    Bollox! thats a well thought out and much deliberated reply.
  7. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Guru

  8. Mort

    Mort Interstellar Overalls

    Jehovah's Witnesses don't eat blood! What, no black pudding? Obviously not the religion for me.
  9. palinurus

    palinurus Guru

    They don't eat blood? damn, they probably don't drink it either. Looks like I was all wrong about them
  10. Maz

    Maz Guru

    This obviously presupposes that no blood transfusions are needed in order to carry out the surgery in the first place. Does the article say what type of surgery?
  11. Tetedelacourse

    Tetedelacourse New Member

    And is the reported survival rate attributed to the blood transfusions that have or have not taken place? Or did they just correlate two random stats?
  12. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Guru

    It says the surgeons use special techniques for Jehovah's Witnesses that mean they don't have to transfuse any blood.
  13. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Guru

    Yes, the survival rate is attributed to blood transfusions not having taken place. It's been borne out by several studies.
  14. craigwend

    craigwend Grimpeur des Holderness

    A bit more info


    Interesting article - particually if this includes the changes around advance decisions?

    Normally a bit sceptical, but questions the validity of the use every time balanced with the risks of not using it.

    Jehovah Witnesses can have (limited) blood 'products' harvested from their own blood & have been at the forefront of pioneering 'bloodless surgery' techniques.

    there's a good page on wikipedia on this


    Not religous myself but spoke to a 'witness' about the subject, generally interesting.