Jump to content
The World News Media

JW España: Trasplantes renales sin transfusiones de sangre para testigos de Jehová


Guest Indiana

Recommended Posts

  • Guest
Guest Indiana

Agencia Latina de Noticias Medicina y Salud Pública

El hospital del Mar despliega un protocolo para minimizar el riesgo de sangrado y garantizar que no se harán transfusiones durante el proceso quirúrgico de estos pacientes

Las convicciones religiosas de los testigos de Jehová —una rama del cristianismo que profesan unos ocho millones de personas en el mundo, según su propia web— les impiden aceptar transfusiones de sangre durante un acto médico. “La Biblia prohíbe el consumo de sangre. Por tanto, los cristianos no debemos comerla. Tampoco debemos aceptar transfusiones de sangre ni de alguno de sus componentes principales”, justifica la congregación en su página web. Comulgar con esta doctrina, sin embargo, imposibilita que este colectivo se someta a algunas cirugías mayores, como un trasplante o una intervención oncológica. Los protocolos asistenciales de este tipo de operaciones obliga a los pacientes a firmar un consentimiento informado conforme aceptan que los cirujanos recurran, si es necesario, a una transfusión sanguínea. Si no autorizan la posibilidad de utilizar este procedimiento, la intervención no puede realizarse.

Pero el hospital del Mar de Barcelona ha dado una vuelta de tuerca a esta situación y ha desplegado un protocolo para garantizar el trasplante renal sin transfusión de sangre a los testigos de Jehová. Los médicos que participan en la intervención quirúrgica y en el posoperatorio aceptan operar sin recurrir a la transfusión de sangre y, además, articulan medidas específicas incluso antes de entrar al quirófano para minimizar el riesgo de sangrado de paciente durante la intervención o en el postoperatorio. “El problema con los testigos de Jehová al no aceptar transfusiones es que supone un impedimento de cara a programar la cirugía. Y ese impedimento muchas veces es por el propio colectivo médico, que no quiere asumir los riesgos que supone aceptar no trasfundir, no utilizar esa herramienta cuando en el caso de una anemia aguda puede curar a una persona tras una cirugía”, explica el doctor Lluís Cecchini, jefe del servicio de Urología y Cirugía del Trasplante del hospital del Mar. 

El protocolo del hospital del Mar, que ya se ha aplicado en un par de caso desde hace un año y medio, sortea el conflicto ético y religioso reforzando las medidas de seguridad. Para empezar, en el preoperatorio, los pacientes con insuficiencia renal crónica suelen sufrir anemia, así que antes de entrar a quirófano, han de someterse a un tratamiento previo con eritropoyetina (EPO), una hormona que estimula la producción de hematíes. “Lo que hacemos para preparar a un paciente testigo de Jehová para el trasplante es establecer unos objetivos de hemoglobina en sangre más altos que los que se indican en el resto de pacientes con insuficiencia renal crónica. Nuestro objetivo es más alto para que al llegar al momento de la cirugía, si pierden sangre, eso suponga que a partir de un nivel más alto, continuamos estando en una zona de seguridad para el paciente”, agrega la doctora Marta Crespo, jefa de sección de Nefrología del hospital del Mar.

Ya en quirófano, equipos especializados de enfermería montan y controlan los llamados cell saver, unas máquinas que permiten recuperar la sangre del mismo paciente y transfundirle sus propios glóbulos rojos. Una operación de trasplante de riñón tiene un riesgo alto de necesitar una transfusión de sangre porque, por un lado, tiene un componente elevado de cirugía vascular y, además, los pacientes con insuficiencia renal no coagulan igual que una persona sana. “Nosotros, de inicio, siempre esperamos no tener que trasfundir”, puntualiza Cecchini.

El riesgo de necesitar una transfusión de sangre el día de la operación es del 10% y se eleva hasta el 41% en el período de ingreso tras el trasplante

Con todo, el riesgo de necesitar una transfusión de sangre el día de la operación es del 10% y se eleva hasta el 41% en el período de ingreso tras el trasplante. De ahí que el protocolo trascienda a la cirugía y se sumerja también en el abordaje del postoperatorio. “En la mayoría de casos, el postoperatorio se maneja de forma conservadora, vigilando al paciente y haciendo un seguimiento con técnica de imagen. En este grupo de pacientes, en cambio, lo que se hace es reintervenirlos de forma precoz para evitar la pérdida de sangre”, concreta el urólogo del hospital del Mar.

Dilema ético

Los impulsores del protocolo admiten que las dudas éticas pesan mucho en estos casos. El “dilema ético” del médico, sostiene el especialista, choca con “la autonomía del paciente a escoger cómo quiere ser tratado”. Por ello, señala, es preciso que todos los participantes en el proceso clínico estén de acuerdo con intervenir pese a no poder utilizar la técnica de la transfusión si fuese necesario.

“Lo que hemos conseguido es una cadena de confianza entre profesionales y estamos todos de acuerdo de que vamos a optimizar pacientes y tratarlo de la mejor forma posible en el acto quirúrgico y en postoperatorio para minimizar el riesgo de transfusión. Pero, si fuera necesario, tampoco aceptaríamos esa transfusión porque hemos adquirido ese compromiso. El personal que está participando en esto tiene que estar de acuerdo”, advierte Cecchini.

Hace año y medio, los especialistas del hospital del Mar intervinieron a un paciente testigo de Jehová con insuficiencia renal crónica que recibió el riñón de un donante vivo de su misma confesión. “O sea, hicimos bajo este protocolo la cirugía de extracción de donante y el trasplante al receptor junto a la extracción de uno de los riñones, que los tenía muy grandes”, concreta la doctora Crespo. En 2017 también se hizo otro trasplante de un donante cadáver.

 

https://medicinaysaludpublica.com/trasplantes-renales-sin-transfusiones-de-sangre-para-testigos-de-jehova/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 413
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
    • In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations. Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none. To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter. I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3. Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah. The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.