Grungie:

mermaid33:

bloo:

A side benefit is that there are more and more doctors in this country practicing bloodless medicine which is proven to be safer.

Do you have a link to back up this claim? And please don't give us one to The Watchtower.

Just for snicks and giggles, going to PubMed (www.pubmed.gov) and typing in "bloodless medicine AND mortality" gets you several abstracts on the subject, including this one:

<link>

I hope that link works--

Mind you, one has to be really careful when interpreting studies like these--this abstract in particular mentions a higher rate of post-op complications with blood transfusions, but it also sounded like the patients that required blood transfusions were sicker in general to begin with.

From my short experience with it, doctors are being taught to transfuse less frequently now than they were in the past. Transfusion reactions, which can occur even if blood types are a match, can be a problem, and there is still the risk of blood-borne diseases, which is miniscule nowadays but still something to think about.

That being said, whether bloodless medicine is "safer" or not really depends on a lot of qualifiers and is still open for debate, IMO

Good point. I probably should amend that earlier statement to "is showing" instead of "has proven". Thanks.