Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs do not necessarily put them at risk

By Piriya Mahendra

Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a significantly increased risk for complications or long-term mortality after cardiac surgery, researchers say.

This means that the blood conservation strategies they engage in as an alternative to blood transfusion before cardiac surgery do not place them at heightened risk for reduced long-term survival, contrary to evidence from previous studies.

The findings, reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine, showed that Jehovah's Witnesses had a significantly lower incidence of myocardial infarction (0.31 vs 2.80%), additional operation for bleeding (3.7 vs 7.1%), and prolonged ventilation (6 vs 16%) than non-Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses were also less likely to stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital for long periods compared with non-Witnesses, at median durations of 25 hours versus 48 hours; and 7 days versus 8 days, respectively (p<0.001 for both).

In addition, Jehovah's Witnesses had a higher 1-year survival rate compared to non-Witnesses, at 95% versus 89%, but statistically similar 20-year survival rates.

Jehovah's Witnesses shun blood transfusion and instead strongly believe in the use of blood conservation practices before surgery to avoid anemia, including preoperative use of erythropoietin and iron and B complex vitamins, intraoperative use of antifibrinolytics, and postoperative liberal use of additional operation for bleeding.

These practices have been associated with morbidity in the past, and their effect on long-term survival is unknown.

However, the results of the current study "cast doubt on observational data, suggesting that perioperative blood transfusion decreases long-term survival," remarks editorialist Victor Ferraris (University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA) in a related commentary.

"The findings of this analysis… add to the increasing data that suggest that more conservative use of blood transfusions would be in our patients' interest, in both Witnesses and non-Witnesses."

The analysis included 322 Jehovah's Witnesses and 87,453 non-Witnesses who underwent cardiac surgery between 1983 and 2011. All Jehovah's Witnesses refused blood transfusions. Of the non-Witnesses, 38,467 did not receive blood transfusions and 48,986 did.

Licensed from medwireNews with permission from Springer Healthcare Ltd. ©Springer Healthcare Ltd. All rights reserved. Neither of these parties endorse or recommend any commercial products, services, or equipment.

Comments

  1. Danny Haszard Danny Haszard United States says:

    Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion confusion

    It is misleading to imply that there is NO RISK refusing blood transfusions which is how the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower will spin it.
    It's only *elective surgery* for patients who are not in ER bleeding to death and in a modern hospital that has all the latest blood conservation gadgets.
    How safe is all the thousands of pints of blood that Jehovah's Witnesses do use?

    Jehovahs Witnesses  take blood products now in 2012.
    They take all fractions of blood.This includes hemoglobin, albumin, clotting factors, cryosupernatant and cryo-poor too, and many, many, others.
    If one adds up all the blood fractions the JWs takes, it equals a whole unit of blood. Any, many of these fractions are made from thousands upon thousands of units of donated blood.
    Jehovah’s Witnesses can take Bovine *cows blood* as long as it is euphemistically called synthetic Hemopure.
    Jehovah's Witnesses now accept every fraction of blood except the membrane of the red blood cell. JWs now accept blood transfusions.
    The fact that the JW blood issue is so unclear is downright dangerous in the emergency room.
    More than 50,000 Jehovah's Witnesses dead from Watchtowers deadly arbitrary blood ban. That is 50 times more than died at Jonestown massacre,some estimates run as high as 100,000 dead
    ---
    Danny Haszard

  2. Rich Rich United Kingdom says:

    Yes but the fact that they refuse transfusions has caused many thousands of them to die. OK bloodless surgery can be beneficial to anyone but depending on the amount of blood loss isn't always an option & in these cases 100% of Jehovah's witnesses will die.

    • Jazzy Jazzy United States says:

      Really Rich. And how many 1000's have accepted transfusion's and died anyway? Witnesses know the risk. It's a fundamental matter of what you believe and how stronly you believe in it. Witnesses don't want to die any more than the millions of soldiers who gave up their lives for their beliefs. Look; if a belief isn't worth dying for then it can hardly be worth living for. What do you believe in Rick?

  3. Milton Martinez Milton Martinez United States says:

    The Bible says, "Abstain from Blood"  Acts 15:29.
    If you think fornicating is okay than you can take all the blood you want.
    Unborn babies receive blood fractions from their mother,
    If a Witness conscientiously accepts blood fractions that is between them and Jehovah.
    There are Witnesses who refuse blood fractions because their conscience doesn't permit them to accept them.
    What part of this is unclear or murky?

    • Janet Tobin Janet Tobin United States says:

      It's all 'murky and unclear' and dangerous in an emergency traumatic crisis.
      The Watchtower's doctrinal ambivalence gets followers killed

    • Diver&#39;s Luck Diver&#39;s Luck United States says:

      How much are the blood fractions?  Or, are you talking about the new word, "derivitives" that the Hosptial Liasion units are using?

      How many units of donated, whole blood is needed to make a single dose of a fractions?

      If you poured all the allowed "between Jehovah and follower" fractions together, would it reconsititute whole blood, by weight/volume?

      Why was Hemoglobin considered to be evil, but finally permitted in 2006?  What is hemoglobin?

  4. xhitmanx xhitmanx United States says:

    danny, if your such an expert on the society, why dont you become there spokesperson. If you're not, then quit spreading your hate and discontent.

  5. Janet Tobin Janet Tobin United States says:

    Re-read Danny Haszard post it is accurate you JW apologist can only shoot the messenger so long....

  6. J Mason Emerson J Mason Emerson United States says:

    Jazzy, JWs are not rightly informed.  They are mislead to think it's far safer in emergencies to not get blood transfusions when the opposite is the truth.  Times of rapid massive bleeding do not allow for a no-blood approach.  This article talks as if not using transfusions is ALWAYS safe and so is clearly misleading and deadly.

  7. Diver&#39;s Luck Diver&#39;s Luck United States says:

    What is bloodless?  Please define it.  

    Does bloodless include "fractions" like hemoglobin, albumin, cyrosupernatate?  Does it include hemodilution?  Cell saver?  Heart/lung machines?

    All of these techniques were once taboo for Jehovah's.  Blood was NEVER to be used again if it got out of the body.  Does "bloodless" include them now?

    If so, then all the "fractions" equals a whole unit of blood if added together.  If JWs can have all of blood, only if piecemeal, and still call it bloodless?  Hemoglobin is allowed, but washed, packed red blood cells are not?  Whatever illogical argument justifies their God, I suppose.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Long-term air pollution exposure linked to increased risk of acute kidney injury and mortality