[transducen]

I want to be a nurse but my religious beliefs prevent me from participating in blood transfusions. Is this a big deal, how does the general population of nurses feel about it? Will everybody hate me? Are there other fields of nursing that I can partcipate in that have little or nothing to do with that?

[sirI]

Hello, transducen

I moved your post to its own thread in the same forum - Nursing Career Advice, for a better response.

[fergus51]

I've worked with several nurses who were JWs and it was never a problem. There are units where blood transfusions are rare, and even in ours where they were common, they would simply get the patient ready and another nurse would start it for them. I never minded doing that for others. As long as you are upfront about it from the beginning and you don't try to convince others that your beliefs are right, I don't see a problem.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by transducen

I want to be a nurse but my religious beliefs prevent me from participating in blood transfusions. Is this a big deal, how does the general population of nurses feel about it? Will everybody hate me? Are there other fields of nursing that I can partcipate in that have little or nothing to do with that?

Let's make a distinction: your religion prevents you from RECEIVING blood products: does it also prevent you from GIVING them to those that don't share your beliefs?

Because, my experience with JW - the biggest religion that comes to mind re: blood products - is that JW nurses don't normally have a problem (or at least not a big enough problem to object to) transfusing blood to non-believers.

It's the difference between having a religious point of view and enforcing your view on others. Don't get me wrong: you are perfectly entitled to your view. But, to the extent your view challenges your ability to do your job: you might well examine other areas of nursing not in a hospital environment.

See, blood transfusions are not always routine, "Can you do this for me; I have a problem with it" situations. Sometimes, they are extremely emergent situations. And sometimes your participation would NOT be something from which you could voluntarily excuse yourself.

And I would say that your co-workers WOULD be annoyed with your objection. Blood transfusions are a 'routine' part of a hospital environment. Think about it this way: would you be annoyed if I told you that I have a conscientious objection to cleaning up vomit - so I'm going to ask YOU to do it for me everytime. Hanging and monitoring blood transfusions are a time-consuming task. Don't be surprised that, if you always put that off on someone else, that they won't be annoyed about it.

I think you would do well to consider how this belief would impact your ability to work in an environment where blood transfusions are routine. At a minimum, I would gravitate to areas where your exposure to blood transfusions is rare.

~faith,
Timothy.

[fergus51]

I'm really surprised at that Timothy. I've always considered turning on a switch a small thing to do for another nurse, especially when you consider how many nurses have objections to other procedures. I've never heard a nurse given flack because she wouldn't participate in an abortion (and some of those are emergent too, I've wheeled patients with ectopic pregnancies to the OR for a catholic nurse) and I've never gotten flack for choosing not to participate in infant circumcisions (I was upfront about it when I was hired and work nights so it doesn't come up at all)... Maybe I've just been lucky that my coworkers supported eachother that way.

[GooeyRN]

If you worked with me I would do your blood transfusions for you. I don't like to see people do things that are against their beliefs. However, it would be expected that you help me with some of my less desirable and time comsuming tasks (Like walking the LOL with the new hip replacement to the BR for the 7th time this shift) since hanging blood and monitoring the pt is time consuming.

[transducen]

thanks for your replies, this helps a lot. actually not using blood has proved to be an ADVANCED medical treatment. i quote Dr. Karl Krieger from the New York Daily News of August 27, 1995 "by eliminating the need for donor blood products, we also reduce the risk of certain postoperative fevers and infections normally associated with transfusuions" The article also states that the New York-Cornell team introduced this type of operation to others besides J.W.'s and they completed 100 consecutive bloodless bypass sugeries with no deaths,( said Krieger) the mortality rate for normal bypass surgery is about 2.3%.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by transducen

thanks for your replies, this helps a lot. actually not using blood has proved to be an ADVANCED medical treatment. i quote Dr. Karl Krieger from the New York Daily News of August 27, 1995 "by eliminating the need for donor blood products, we also reduce the risk of certain postoperative fevers and infections normally associated with transfusuions" The article also states that the New York-Cornell team introduced this type of operation to others besides J.W.'s and they completed 100 consecutive bloodless bypass sugeries with no deaths,( said Krieger) the mortality rate for normal bypass surgery is about 2.3%.

You do know that the above statement is religious spin not based on fact. I'm fine with the concept that JW don't believe in transfusion. But it is an entirely different argument to dismiss a long respected and proven therapy on shaky medical grounds in order to support a religious belief.

Mind you, I'm not attacking your religious beliefs but the argument that said beliefs would be sound medical practice - with or without the underlying belief. I've personally seen JWs die from lack of transfusion and - while it might be argued that those deaths involved pristine religious practice - it can in NO WAY be argued that it was ADVANCED medical treatment.

In any case, at this point, this thread departs from being a reasonable medical question and becomes a 'break room' topic.

I did spend some time looking this question up. It seems that not only is the issue split among JW Nurses about whether to transfuse non-believers - but the church itself says such things are a matter of individual preference - although: the JW nurses that claim to transfuse non-believers were emphatic about keeping that bit of trivia to themselves and advising not to tell anyone.

I was going to quote sites and direct quotes, but then, it seems like the topic has switched to debating the religion of banning blood transfusing itself instead of the nursing ethics of it.

~faith,
Timothy.

[prmenrs]

I don't think she wants the other nurse to do the entire proceedure, just hook it up and turn it on.

I do agree, however, that you won't win any friends trying to convince anyone of your point of view. It goes along w/not discussing religion or politics.

Just treat it matter of fact: tell your manager up front, when the situations arises, ask your coworker to "hook it up and turn it on". You'll still need to do the frequent VS or whatever the drill is for that institution.

[transducen]

Of course I would not want someone to do the entire procedure, and also I would be more than willing to do other "unpleasant tasks" for fellow nurses. But, I think zashagalka, obviously thinks not doing blood transfusions is ridiculous and perhaps has not considered the reasons that there are at least 120 bloodless hospitals worldwide. What you stated is only an opinion at best ( not even an opinion of one who's been to medical school) and IS appreciated. It helps me get a feel of the type of people I will be working with. It's a shame that some give the impression that nursing is all about blood transfusions.