Transfusion Medicine - Is its Future Secure?

 Experts Speak Out

Armed with such knowledge, a growing number of health-care workers are taking a more critical look at transfusion medicine. Reports the reference work Dailey's Notes on Blood:  "Some physicians maintain that allogeneic blood [blood from another human] is  a dangerous drug and that its use would be banned if it were evaluated by the same standards as other drugs." 

Late in 2004, Professor Bruce Spiess said the following about transfusing a primary blood component into patients undergoing heart surgery: "There are a few if any [medical] articles that support transfusion actually improving patient outcome."  In fact, he writes that many such transfusions "may do more harm than good in virtually every instance except trauma," increasing "the risk of pneumonia, infections, heart attacks and strokes."  

It surprises many to learn that the standards for administering blood are not nearly as uniform as one would expect.  Dr. Gabriel Pedraza recently reminded his colleagues in Chile that "transfusion is a poorly defined practice," one that makes it "difficult to. . . apply universally accepted guidelines." No wonder Brian McClelland, director of Edinburg and Scotland Blood Transfusion Service, asks doctors to "remember that a transfusion is a transplant and therefore not a trivial decision."  He suggests that doctors ponder the question, "If this was myself or my child, would I agree to a transfusion?" 

In truth, more than a few health-care workers express themselves as did one hematologist, who told Awake!: "We transfusion-medicine specialists do not like to get or give blood."  If this is the feeling among some well-trained individuals in the medical community, now should patients feel?

Next time: Transfusion Medicine - Is Its Future Secure? - Will Medicine Change?

From the jw.org publications