@basha Said
I wonder where you got your medical degree?? Acute trauma often requires the use of blood transfusions. Different blood components serve different purposes. It has been deemed in current life threatening haemorrhage that 4 units of plasma to 1 unit of red cells is more appropriate than 5 units of red cells, so i will grant you that outcomes are improving based upon a lessed use of packed cells. But the simple fact of the matter is that the human body cannot function without Haem. Haem carries oxygen. Haem is only present in red cells, Ergo red cells are vital to survival.
And JW do and have refused transfusions of ALL blood components for both themselves and their children. I have seen it. and i have seen the Doctors fight to make these children a ward of court so that they can save them.
And how dare you generalise that anyones father is bad simply because they do not teach the bible. Your arrogance is astounding.
Bible or no bible, my father is a better man than you.
Al a medical degree would have done for me is teach me what they want me to know, not what is right and true.
Traumatic injuries involving great deals of blood loss need a volume expander.
Can you tell me one thing, other than that which transfused blood does?
It introduces foreign DNA which immediately triggers off the immune system reducing it's ability to work on the original problem. Give your T cells two targets and you halve their efficiency.(Haemolytic reaction)
Stored blood does not carry least 24 hours often 48, by which time the body has disposed of the introduced and useless red blood cells anyway and replaced them.
There are some things which blood cannot be screened against and are therefore passed on to the recipient (My father got metastatic cancer cellos through his, and that killed him very painfully because it left him with metastatic cancer in every organ in his body, as well as his bones).
Stored blood is loaded with anti-coagulants (the only reason you get a "bottle" of liquid not jelly). The anti-coalgulants introduced then prevent the remaining original blood from clotting thus making Haemorrhage more likely and more disastrous when it happens.
There are many more problems in using blood in a transfusion, which is why the current generation of Surgeons are much more involved with bloodless surgery in all operations (google "bloodless surgery" and you will see what I mean).
None of these problems are involved when using any of the many alternative transfusion media easily available (the Japanese even developed one decades ago which carry oxygen, but I guess that one actually does would be expensive).
Ask yourself. Why would, back in the 70's, a Surgeon, and not any surgeon, but the head of the Texas Heart Institute at that as well as a pioneer in heart transplantation, actually promote bloodless surgery? The answer is simple. He started doing it because he thought someone ought to do something for JWs and found he was routinely getting a 7.5% better recovery rate with them, so he spread the practice to all his patients unless they insisted on blood being used (He used Ringers Lactate).
Just in case you are interested in Dr Cooley's credentials try this link https://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/coo0bio-1.
While you are at it, check out
https://www.theuniversityhospital.com/bloodless/
and
https://www.watchtower.org/e/19980822/article_01.htm
Sometimes not having a degree frees you from the constraints a degree imposes, lol.