Can this surgery be done without giving blood transfusions?

The incision is not where you bleed. It is internal, where they remove the rectum (at least that is the most risky place). So, laparoscopy may not make that much difference. In all likelihood, transfusion won't be necessary anyway. It is not a typical thing. The banking of blood is more of a precaution than a "need." But, you need to have it all planned out in advance for the contingencies.

I was not adverse to transfusions, but wanted designated donor blood (because I was too sick to donate for myself). I went through surgery fine, although got pretty low in my blood counts. It was the complications afterwards, with a presacral abscess and further dropping of my hemoglobin that caused me to need transfusions. And wouldn't you know it? It was the day after the designated donor blood expired and got tossed! So, I wound up getting anonymous donor blood anyway.

We all have to choose our own paths, and who are we to decide what is right for you? The main thing is that your surgical team is on the same page and you are willing to assume the risks.

Jan

It's often tricky to effectively assess risks. In this case the surgical risk of death would change from negligible to quite real, and the risk of serious complications would also rise. This would be chiefly influenced by the specific risk (for a given surgery) of severe or uncontrolled bleeding. Some surgeons will be willing to let you assume that risk, while many others will perceive it as unacceptable. No surgeon likes it much when a patient's choice creates a surgical failure.

Every surgery is considerably riskier when it must be undertaken under adverse conditions. When life-saving tools cannot be used, whether because they're unavailable or because they're forbidden, lives really will be lost and damaged more often. Most of us feel differently about risk after it bites us, and is no longer abstract.

If a blood transfusion is really a no-no for you, you should take a marker and write that on your torso before surgery. I know this sounds ridiculous, but even if it's not likely to happen, mistakes are sometimes made (like operating on the wrong knee).

I looked up Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion and now I'm confused. It says that pre-operative autologous blood is prohibited but that transfusions of autologous blood as part of a "current therapy" IS permitted. I guess I don't see the difference. Does this mean if one prepares ahead of time for a possible transfusion it is not permitted but one can have an autologous transfusion while being operated on? It was also interesting that the prohibition on blood transfusions was only introduced in 1945.

kathy

Yes, it is something about having the blood removed and stored that makes it contaminated. Not sure that is the proper word, but you get my drift. The "current therapy" thing is for non-blood cell components, like clotting factors, albumin, that sort of thing- to treat a specific disease with your own blood components, but not a transfusion with blood cells. Cell-scavenging, like I described with cell-saver technology, during a surgical procedure is allowed, I believe because it is kept in "circulation" with the blood stream, and not removed and stored.

It is all very confusing, but it is to conform to a specific Bible quote. One nice thing is that you are only disassociated from the faith if you voluntarily have a transfusion. So it is OK if it is done while you are unconscious and the providers did not know (maybe the note in your pocket or wallet got destroyed with your clothes, or stolen, whatever). If that happens, it had nothing to do with your faith.

Jan

Thank you for the explanation Jan.

kathy

I have had a couple dozen abdominal surgeries and only need 1 transfusion (step 2 of k pouch) due to rather unexpected complications that had nothing to do with the surgery itself directly (I woke up in the middle of surgery and went into shock...consequently I needed blood)...if not, they never had to transfuse me and they did a lot of work in there...it isn't a bad idea to stock blood if you are really scared as long as it can be used for another patient if (hopefully) it is not needed.
Sharon

They do not give your blood to someone else if you don't use yours. Mainly, it is because they designate it to you, and even if you don't use it during surgery, you may need it within that 30 days or so that it is viable.

I know, seems like a waste.

Jan

Really is a waste...Darn.
No way to donate it if you don't need it? Seems dumb for it to litterally go down the drain.
Sharon

Well, the thing is that once it is designated, it is designated, and does not go through the same rigors. Plus, say you were able to give it away, and the next day something happened that you needed a transfusion? You'd be up **** creek. Happened to me. The day after my designated blood was tossed, I needed a transfusion. But, I wasn't up any creek, I just used anonymous donor blood. I was fine.

Jan