Blood transfusion row in Britain
Posted on November 7, 2007
People are focusing on one case where refusal of a transfusion appears to have caused death. What they are NOT mentioning is that in MOST cases refusal of a transfusion has a BETTER outcome than accepting it. And the reason why is now fairly clear. Blood loses its oxygen-carrying capacity shortly after donation. So even WITH a transfusion the woman would probably have died
A Jehovah’s witness died shortly after giving birth to twins because her faith prevented her from having a blood transfusion. Emma Gough, 22, began haemorrhaging but because her beliefs did not allow her to receive blood she slipped into unconsciousness and died. As she suffered severe blood loss and her life ebbed away, medical staff urged her husband, Anthony, and her parents, all of whom follow the same faith, to overrule her decision and allow a transfusion which could have saved her, but they refused.
More here
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Blood transfusion row in Britain”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
While the examples you give are interesting, the bottom line is that these people are being criticized and criminalized for their religious beliefs. What is so crazy is that if she would have voluntarily wanted to commit suicide, these same critics would be advocating the right to die.
Your post is misleading. Banked blood loses *some* of its efficiency — not all, or even most. It has been, and continues to be, a lifesaving therapy. Your statement that “in MOST cases refusal of a transfusion has a BETTER outcome” is simply false — and is not supported by the article you link to. Further, of course, the article you link to notes that the best use of a transfusion is exactly the case of the woman who died because she did not get one. Finally, the simplistic tone of the article misses the point that those patients who receive transfusions receive them because they are at higher risk — it is not surprising that they have more complications; if they had uncomplicated surgery, they would not have needed a transfusion. Making these incorrect and silly claims about transfusion medicien is a disservice similar to the propaganda of the anti-vaccination or anti-flouridation idiots. People who make these kinds of claims are the “truthers” of the medical world, and are just as silly. In fact, blood transfusions would have likely saved this woman’s life.
I dislike interfering in situations that involve religion as I am anything but unbiased. Some may see this as a right to die situation and such a right does not exist. Chances are she believes that if she died it was God’s will because He has the power to prevent her death if He so chooses. I disagree because I believe you should not test God.