Transfusions and Peer Pressure
Many people today, including some doctors, are refusing blood transfusions. On what grounds? Not for religious reasons, as do Jehovah’s Witnesses, but on medical grounds. Why is that? Because of the inherent risks (such as hepatitis, AIDS, and suppressed immune system) that someone else’s blood always carries. Yet, in most cases where blood is recommended, friends and hospital staff tend to pressure the patient to accept a transfusion. But there is often another kind of pressure at work—peer pressure on the attending doctors.
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in its July 25, 1990, issue: “Evidence shows that blood products, like other health care resources, are often used inappropriately . . . We conducted a face-to-face survey of 122 general surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and anesthesiologists in three hospitals to evaluate the influence of several clinical and nonclinical factors on transfusion decision making. We found widespread deficiencies in physicians’ knowledge of transfusion risks and indications.”
What is meant by “nonclinical factors”? The report answers in part: “Physicians’ decisions are influenced by their colleagues through professional and social networks. The influence of peer pressure is felt most strongly when several physicians practice together . . . In these settings, actions may at times be motivated by the expectation of a superior or influential peer, a desire to conform with group norms, or the wish to avoid criticism.”
The article explained that “only 10%, however, stated that they had given a potentially unnecessary transfusion to appease a colleague once a month or more . . . Fully 61% of residents indicated that they had given transfusions that they thought were unnecessary because a more senior physician had suggested that they do so, at least once a month.” Apart from this kind of professional peer pressure, what other factor might induce a doctor to order a transfusion?
“Some physicians may be predisposed to provide treatments because of a preference for errors of commission vs errors of omission.” One medical expert “suggested that the traditional injunction Primum non nocere (‘First do no harm’) may often be suspended in favor of the rule ‘First do something.’ Such a propensity to act may be a factor in explaining inappropriate transfusion practice.”
Are patients conscious of transfusion risks? “On average, physicians stated that half of the patients for whom they order a red blood cell transfusion voice concern about the risks of transfusion.”
Surely, this illustrates that in the field of transfusions, an educated physician and an educated patient are in a better position to avoid unnecessary risks. The educated Christian has an even better protection—Jehovah’s commands against the abuse of blood.—Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:13-16; Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29.