People Shouldn't Get Blood Transplants - Essay Example

Running Head: Health Sciences and Medicine People Shouldn’t Get Blood Transplants A Discussion Paper Submission Blood transplants, since its introduction during the Second World War, have been considered as vital for patients going through surgery (The Daily Mail, 2010). However, at present, there are apprehensions that although blood transplants have certainly saved thousands of lives, they could have endangered them as well. Current studies report that people shouldn’t get blood transplants because of its negative effects.

According to some studies blood transplants during surgical procedure consequently threatens the life of the patient, especially from strokes or heart attacks, and of acute health disorders like lymph glands cancer and pneumonia (The Daily Mail, 2010). The precise explanation for the possible negative effects of blood transplants on human beings remains unknown. However, it is not connected to infected blood transmitting disease. Rather, scientists are studying two feasible explanations. First is that donated blood, rather than strengthening the capacity of an ailing individual to defend himself/herself against illness, may make their immune system incapable of protecting itself from infections (The Daily Mail, 2010).

Second is that transplants may set off swelling in the blood vessels, boosting the possibility of strokes and heart attacks after surgical treatment. This is due to the fact that at some point in its 30-day shelf life (The Daily Mail, 2010, 48), stocked up donated blood goes through major alterations that can make it lethal or poisonous for a number of beneficiaries. It is believed that noxious enzymes that are discharged by red blood cells and excreted from the body instead amass in stocked up blood and weaken the immune system.

Scientists at the University of Kentucky discovered that undergoing less than a pint of blood transplant enhanced the possibility of death by 32% within 30 days (The Daily Mail, 2010, 48). A pint is the smallest quantity an individual is normally given. Majority requires roughly three pints to boost their capacity of recovering from a surgical procedure (Peterson, 2006). The research, made public by the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, examined a large number of patients going through surgical procedure for an array of health disorders, like appendicitis or hernia.

In addition to an elevated possibility of dying, it discovered the risks of developing wound infections, pneumonia, or blood poisoning increased by 23% (The Daily Mail, 2010, 49) in comparison to research participants who did not receive blood transplants. The American Journal of Cardiology currently published a study at a time when growing findings indicate transplants may not just be needless but may in fact be threatening to several patients. Duke researchers, in previous investigations, discovered that patients with cardiovascular disease with hematocrit—a gauge of the amount of oxygen-carrying red blood cells— below 30 were more prone to experience another heart attack if they received blood transplants (Duke University, 2008, para 3).

The researchers confirm that majority of physicians in the United States are educated to recommend a transplant when the hematocrit of a heart attack patient drops below 30 (Duke University, 2008, para 3). A Duke cardiologist, Dr. Sunil Rao, claims that “But that’s not based on good science. The first successful blood transfusion was done decades ago, and yet we still haven’t conducted the randomized, prospective clinical trials we need to do in order to find out which cardiac patients should get transfusions, and when they should get them” (Duke University, 2008, para 4).

He adds that several transplants are required. For instance, in serious instances where patients become excessively anemic or experience serious loss of blood, transplant can prolong lives. Yet he believes doctors usually decide rashly to recommend blood transplant when it is unavoidable (Duke University, 2008, para 5-6). Another reason why people shouldn’t get blood transplants is the risk of developing acute lung injury, hemolytic reaction, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Acute lung injury is quite uncommon and extremely fatal.

Patients may experience breathing difficulties and high fever (Peterson, 2006, 122). Hemolytic reaction, similarly, is a quite atypical side effect in which the antibodies weaken the transplanted red cells and injure them because the blood of the patient does not complement the transplanted blood (Peterson, 2006, 113). In the case of GVHD, on the other hand, white blood cells from the transplanted blood damage the tissues of the patient. It is more frequent in patients who suffer from damaged immune system.

Symptoms can comprise skin irritations, diarrhea, liver disorders, and fever (Peterson, 2006, 117). Yet, in spite of these potential negative effects of blood transplants, some scientists remain interested in and fascinated with how blood transplants have transformed and modernized surgical treatment in the past decades. As stated by a professional cardiac surgery lecturer at the University of Bristol, Gavin Murphy, “transfusion has saved countless lives and, in my opinion, remains one of the miracles of modern medicine” (The Daily Mail, 2010, 49).

Therefore, blood transplant can still save lives in numerous circumstances. References n.a. (2010). “Could a Blood Transfusion Give You a Heart Attack?” The Daily Mail, 48. Duke University (2008). “Blood transfusions may be harmful to some patients” Science Daily, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103134411.htm Peterson, B. (2006). New Developments in Blood Transfusion Research. New York: Gazelle Distribution.