As good of an idea as reducing transfusions is, I can't help but think that this is the wrong way to do it.<p>> He said his focus was intensified by the knowledge that if a patient died for lack of blood, a second life might hang in the balance — the wait-listed patient who would otherwise have received the organ.<p>Doctors should not be adrenaline junkies playing with other peoples' lives, especially those who aren't even their patient. This looks like a pretty clear breach of the ethics I expect from doctors.
> By cherry-picking patients with low odds of complications, Dr. Scheinin felt he could operate almost as safely without blood as with it.<p>And what does he suppose the odds would be if he applied the same cherry-picking whilst operating <i>with</i> the option of a blood transfusion?<p>I'm not necessarily advocating for reliance on blood transfusions here, but the logic (and ethics) of this seem highly questionable.
You can think that this is insane, but because Jehovah's Witnesses being stubborn about blood transfusions, much progress has been made in bloodless procedures. Most of the time they cost less, and there are less complications after the procedures. Even the US army was interested lately [1] in how to incorporate these procedures.<p>Full disclosure: I'm a Jehovah's Witness.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w</a>
I don't really see what is so interesting about this. As I understand it those are just normal lung transplants, the difference is that you simply select patients so that complications that would require blood transfusions are minimal, to keep everyone concerned about the ethics of it happy.<p>It might be somewhat helpful to have doctors who are less trigger happy when it comes to giving blood transfusion but I don't see how that is particularly innovative or hinting in any way at the future. This only helps a couple of not too ill people who want to keep their imaginary friend happy.
I don't know if you can register that your organs only go to people of a particular group (religious beliefs, for example), but if that is possible then it would solve the ethical issue of giving an organ to someone who is a less suitable candidate (due to them refusing other life-saving treatment in the case of complications). Just have the various religious groups put on their organ donation form that they are to be donated only to others with similar beliefs.
It is an interesting read, especially in terms of the surgeon's framing of the ethical question. I just wish medicine focused more on helping people keep their own organs functional. But that isn't heroic and headline-worthy. Sigh.