Blood Transfusions Are Not Medically Necessary

(This is an argument essay I wrote at Sinclair Community College English 111 a proud time in my life there were many classes I enjoyed but English Composition was great because I got encouragement as a writer and never got less than a B+ on any essay that first year. My favorite essay is this one because I defended a fundamental religious view to objective secular minds and it was accepted as a viable argument winning respect from those who differed in this opinion. Years of getting slammed in the face in the door to door ministry I found writing would get people to listen. this is an edited draft of that essay might not be the final one)
Trepanning, lobotomies, phrenology and bleeding, all once highly praised by the scientific world. Today scuffed and scorned at by even the most mediocre of minds. What is once a medical break through turns into pseudoscience.If someone was to deny such services in their peak they would have been scuffed and scorned, as crazy as it seems. Blood transfusions are just another dangerous faulty procedure with a sketchy history. People should not be ridiculed for the refusal of blood. In fact blood transfusions should be more examined through its history and the history of its alternatives.
The history of blood transfusions are filled with set backs, while there are constant advances in their alternatives. It started in 1667, with Doctor Jean-Baptiste Denis using calf's blood to treat a madman named Antoine Mauroy and failed fatally. Englishman James Blundell revises blood transfusions by using human blood in the 19th century taking the medical world over 150 years to make that conclusion. In 1873, F. Gesellius discovered over half of all blood transfusions ended in death. In 1878, Georges Hayem perfected a saline solution blood substitue called Hayem's Solution that did not make blood clots, had no strange side effects and was easily transportable. But in 1900 Karl Landsteiner discovered certain blood types existed and could not be mixed. Blood transfusions sky rocketed with propaganda during WWI and WWII using slogans like "Red Blood Needed For Red Blooded Americans" "Give Blood Now" "Your Blood Can Save Him" and "He Gave His Blood. Will You Give Yours." 13,000,000 units were donated during WWII in America alone. In the baby boomer generation blood transfusions became a multi-billion industry like tobacco which doctors allowed despite their knowledge of its danger. In the 1970's hepatitis from tainted blood transfusion was estimated to be somewhere between 3,500 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to potentially 35,000. Things got worse in the 1980's with HIV.
Looking at the history alone should make one reconsider transfusions medical merit. This involves an age old barrier between the worlds of science and religion. Religion has lost a lot of battles to science like the debate of earth's shape and position in the solar system, but other battles like evolution there has many times been a merging of thoughts. Religion has often taken a beaten from the medical world destroying religion's image. But religion and science do not necessarily contradict: both have been mistaken, misinterpreted, and corrupted from the smoking issue to a government's "divine right."
Many say a countless number of people will die without blood transfusions and to them this is a matter of life and death but an unheard crowd says this sentiment is not rational or fact based. Anyone opposed to blood transfusions is well aware of the counterarguments, since they are in the minority. Majority of people assume that only Jehovah's Witnesses do not use blood transfusions, but Dr. Spahn, professor of anesthesiology in Zurich, Switzerland, quoted "Even the surgeons request that we avoid transfusions! One surgeon, for example, came to us about his wife, who needed an operation. He said 'Just make sure of one thing that she does not get a blood transfusion'" and "those requesting bloodless medicine are usually well-informed patients" and Dr. Shander, assistant clinical professor of anesthesiology stated "in 1998 the patients who refused blood for personal reasons exceeded the number of patients who refused blood for religious reasons." People claim it is unscriptural to deny blood transfusions, but the King James Bible specifically states that it is unclean in Acts 15:28-29: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." Leviticus 17:14 "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off" and Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." People say bloodless operations are not adequate but for every one of blood transfusions many back steps bloodless medicine takes a giant step forward in its own merit. There are fluids like Ringer's lactate solution, dextran, hydroxythyl starch and many others that maintain blood volume, prevent hypovolemic shock and some are making progress in carrying oxygen. There are drugs like erythropoietin that produces red blood cells, interleukin-11 that reproduce blood platelets, GM-CSF that reproduce white blood cells, aprotinin and antifribrinolytics that reduce blood loss and desmopressin to help acute blood loss. There are collagen and cellulose woven pads, fibran glues and sealants that also reduce blood loss. There are also advancing surgical techniques and tools. None of these drugs, operations or techniques can carry diseases, whereas blood can. Many may think these procedures are expensive but compared to blood transfusions Dr. Shander says "there is a twenty-five percent reduction of cost with bloodless medicine."
This issue, although as big and as radical as it sounds, would not be dramatic. Certainly it will be a big deal at first in both the scientific and religious world. This could and has divided religion and science as well as science with itself and religion with itself. So far little fact has been used in this battle because the majority is being put in question and the populous masses have drowned the voices of reform that have facts. If the debate is lost now the strength of the minority will not be silenced because majority does rule not fact but facts reform the people. When or maybe if the minority wins it will just be another change in the status quo and a bit of progress in mankind.
Personal anecdotes will help bring the history out. The greatest anecdotes I can give are of blood transfusion victims to show the folly of this procedure. Antoine Mauroy was the first victim of modern medical blood transfusions. Elizabeth Meyer-Glaser, wife of famous actor Philip Glaser, was given a blood transfusion with HIV. Joyce Kimmel was given blood in Canada tainted with the West Nile virus, believed to have started its recent epidemic. Men in Nebraska and Texas were given blood with the West Nile virus. France is till going through an AIDS tainted blood transfusion crisis with the French Health Minister in a hailstorm with court trials for criminal acts.
Although these news are radical the action is simple. They must research bloodless transfusions so they can see it as sane, scientific and practical solution for themselves. Everybody must go and inform and educate the public. They must not scorn those who would also reject blood transfusions.