Talk:Bloodless surgery

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

New York/New Jersey

I am not sure why, but New York and New Jersey were merged as one section previously. To top things off, the unordered list was headed with </nowiki>*New York City</nowiki>, despite the majority of the hospitals listed not even being from NY at all, let alone NYC.
I have separated the two states. Also - I would like to preemptively point out that plenty of other states have only one hospital listed, so that couldn't have been the justification for merging the two. -Deathsythe (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't any of the risks of Bloodless surgery listed. Some can be found here. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3689/is_199911/ai_n8853377/

"The risks of bloodless surgery include:

irreversible damage to a vital organ

anemia

tissue hypoxia

uncontrollable hemorrhage, which can lead to anoxic brain injury, myocardial infarction, bowel infarct, lung injury, or kidney failure. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.139.5 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one giving/not giving the blood

No offense intended, but declaring "I took some vitamins" before your knee surgery had nothing to do with your recovery. Okay, it may have had "something" to do with it, but only on an anecdotal basis.

It's also interesting to note that when it comes to a child, logic prevails and the use of blood to save a life rears it's ugly head and we completely ignore religious preference. We transfuse ("we" meaning medical personnel) to save their lives. Yeah, the kid may no longer be a card-carrying Jehovah but they live to tell their story.

It's also fascinating that an entire blood industry has evolved around religious preference. There is money to be made and saved when it comes to blood transfusions, but hospital stays are reduced when we use them. And we ALL pay for increased hospital lengths of stay. At best, we are simply "tolerating" ignorance. Patients who refuse blood are easier to care for, at least. We don't rush in to save them when something goes wrong. We just silence the monitors and watch them fade away. But they take up an ICU room for MONTHS when they could have been discharged months earlier had they allowed blood transfusions. Guys, this is your money. This is your health care. I'm not making this stuff up.

Oh, and to be fair, we have an 88 year old man on a ventilator right now (December 2012) who simply requested that all efforts be made to revive him because he's a Catholic. The patients daughter is a lawyer and she's going to adhere to his wishes, which is admirable. But YOU ALL SHOULD SEE HIM. This is torture. The power of words can make or break you. His little wife sits there, holding his hand while he struggles to breath on a ventilator. He's put in 88 years and it's come down to this. Yes, he gets blood transfusions every day. This may be a case where being a Jehovah would bring some closure to a proud life. I am torn. Please, as someone who must administer the torture, just say NO MORE. Merry Christmas. Woops. Pissed off the Muslims. 68.96.205.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]