Bloodless Surgery

isaacbowman writes "Dr. Charles Bridges, a Pennsylvania Hospital cardiologist, says says regarding new bloodless surgery options - "Among the benefits are reductions in recovery time, hospital stay, cost and complications -- as well as an estimated $20,000 in savings per patient." Advances in medicine have made this possible and Dr. Bridges also says, "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented." Dr. Patricia Ford, director of Pennsylvania Hospital's Center for Bloodless Medicine & Surgery, further states, why blood transfusions are dangerous, saying that they are "like getting a transplant; they can be risky and should be a last resort.""

Comments

JW's must be happy with this one

[PortHaven]

An image of 144,000 Jehovah Witnesses leaping for joy.

*lol*

Re:Driving force for bloodless surgery

[DrXym]

Yes it is. It is as close to a stone age, irrational belief as it is possible to be. But I'm betting you're one of those people who follows every single tenet of the bible right? You've never eaten prawns or shellfish? You have a beard? You've never had sex with a woman during her period? etc. etc. And of course you believe every single story in the bible? The Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark etc. etc.

Funnily enough all the JWs who come-a-godbothering around these parts are clean shaven. So they're hypocrites. They believe one part of the bible but choose to ignore another. So what's the big deal with a blood transfusion? If you can choose to ignore other parts (perhaps discarding them because they are absurd), then you should be able to with transfusions. Especially when it is likely to save your life. Or your kids life.

As for JWs being able to prophecy anything... This is the group which has predicted the end of the world how many times?