There is an absolutely evil headline circulating on the internet right now. In one form or another it shouts: ‘How many thousands of JWs died for refusing blood because of an arbitrary ruling from their organization?’
Why is that evil? Well, for one thing, it is a trick question. It implies that thousands of lives have been lost. It implies that people have died needlessly for a belief, an arbitrary one at that. It doesn’t offer any actual facts. It just screams, “Conspiracy!”
Here’s my answer to that question: Name one. If you claim that “thousands” died, name one. Now, before you give me a name, listen: it must be a name of someone who died for lack of a blood-based medicine. AND, it must be someone who definitely would NOT have died had they accepted that blood-based treatment. AND, you’ll have to show me proof that no other treatment would have saved them.
Here’s why I say that. Blood loss, say from a traumatic accident or a surgery that went wrong, needs first and foremost to have its fluid volume replaced, as quickly as possible, with another fluid. That fluid does not have to be blood; Ringer’s lactate or some other saline solution will serve, as long as it keeps the remaining red blood cells circulating, from the lungs to the individual cells and back. Many doctors prefer to replace the lost blood with other blood. But doctor preference does not necessarily make it a life-or-death requirement.
Blood is way overbuilt to carry oxygen. Whereas a normal healthy hemoglobin level is around 14, there are literally thousands of examples of patients who have survived levels less than half that with no ill effects. At least one patient recovered after their hemoglobin level dropped to 0.6 during liver surgery. There are numerous reports of cases where patients' hemoglobin was below 2 and they were able to drive themselves to the hospital.
Now, the treatment those patients received when they got to the hospital was, in many cases, blood. But does that mean that transfusion saved their lives? If because of their religious beliefs or for some other reason they had insisted on being treated without blood, did their doctors have other tools available that would have saved their lives? Almost certainly. If their doctors figured out why the hemoglobin was missing, treated them with EPO, TXA, iron, and other medicines, would that have resulted in headlines that read, ‘Patient treated with life-saving iron’? Not likely. ‘Crazy patient refuses life-saving blood transfusion’ always seems to make a better headline.
Since that evil rhetorical question isn’t going to go away anytime soon, here’s the question that reasonable people should really be asking: “How many thousands of people are alive today because of the stance of Jehovah’s Witnesses against blood?”
A study that was done in the Seventies of the 30,000 hepatitis patients found that 6% of them got their disease from a transfusion. That’s 1,800 people unnecessarily living with – and some dying from – hepatitis.
In the Eighties, when AIDS was just beginning to explode, literally thousands of hospital patients wrote down “Jehovah’s Witness” on their hospital intake forms – despite having no connection to the organization – just to make sure they were not given blood. The famous tennis player Arthur Ashe died of AIDS he contracted from a blood transfusion, as did many, many other HIV victims.
More than half of the known 17,000 hemophilia patients at that time contracted HIV/AIDS from blood transfusions. The blood supply today is far better guarded. But how many of those thousands of hemophiliacs might have been spared becoming AIDS victims had they followed the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A study done in 2014 that looked back at 575 blood product recipients showed that one-half of them died within the first year after transfusion. How many of those would be alive today had they insisted on being treated without blood?
A study in 2019 looked back at 6,192 patients who had received blood products 10 years earlier. They found that 2,082 of those patients who had received blood died within the first year. How many of those 2,082 people might be alive had they taken a firm stand against blood? Interestingly, that study also matched up the results of the blood recipients with patients who had similar health scenarios but who did not receive blood. The blood recipients had an 87% higher mortality rate than their counterparts who were not given blood.
Still another study involving 678 patients with massive blood loss who received large transfusions found that 100 of them died within 24 hours. The mortality rate was even higher in those who received 10 units or more. It was also significantly higher in those who received blood that had been in storage longer.
Am I prejudiced on this subject? Yes, I admit I am. This is now the sixteenth column I’ve written on the subject of blood in medicine. I'm no doctor. But I have done exhaustive research. I have proven to myself categorically that blood is just bad medicine. I'm convinced that if you take the time to find a doctor who will listen to you and respect your beliefs you will have a better outcome. On the other hand, if your doctor claims that ‘blood is the ONLY solution’, or that ‘you’ll die without blood’, or that ‘you’ve been misled’, or 'your religion wants you to die', or ‘you need to listen to someone who is properly educated’… THEY are the ones being pigheaded, not you.
Please feel free to leave a comment. To read another of my columns on blood, click here.
Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can help support this site by clicking on this link to purchase one of his books at Amazon.com.
