Yes, there is a religious group that it is a sin to have modern medical treatment or have donated blood. Sadly if the illness is serious enough, the person would die of what they may concider natural causes.

It's been known to happen but rare. In my life I have donated over 150 pints of blood. Twice I directly donated 2 pints at once to surgery patients. One a wounded F105 pilot. Years later a car accident patient. Both lived and I was told neither would have had I not provided my blood. I have to say I really like direct donation as I get to meet the person and see the results. I am universal donor with exceptional factors promoting recovery. Mainly I produce high immune factors.

yes. if you are low on blood volume or anemic, you dont have enough red blood cells to carry the oxygen through your body. both are reasons to get blood.

Yes, my moms vains would not take another transfusion. They tryed a new crap in a needle, it was supposed to go right to her small intestines, whee all nutrients go, she died. I also know a family that refused to have their daughter transfused (religious beliefs) she had her tonsils out, needed blood, got none and died. She lived on our street.

No, not really. They might die from a lack of oxygenation or inadequate perfusion, either from low blood volume (hypovolemia), inadequate pressure or circulation from low pressure(hypotension) or cardiac arythmia like fibrillation, anemia or any other of hundreds of disorders which can lead to death, but none of them are refusal to take a blood transfusion, it is not a cause of death or disorder. Some believe that refusing to take blood is refusing treatment, but it is only refusing a certain form of treatment. It could just as easily be said that the doctor refused to treat the patient by using saline, EPO, direct pressure, elevation, patient position and temperature in an attempt to control hemmorage because of lack of knowledge in alternatives to his use of blood, and in that every case where persons accuse a person who refuses blood to be negligent, the negligence lies solely on the part of the medical practitioner who refuses to use good sense in the application of medicine, namely using outdated, ineffective and dangerous practices for which there are safe and effective alternatives. My grandmother died last week after dozens of transfusions, many many times told by doctors that these would save her life, that refusal would lead to death. Well guess what, it did not save her life, she's dead. What's more, she had many problems with infections after taking the blood, spending months in the hospital, not for the original problem, but for treatment for the treatment, immune suppression from blood transfusions. There were a few months when she was transferred to care in another hospital, one in which they do not routinely give blood transfusions, where she was given EPO instead. Very quickly she improved to the point where she could return home, where she enjoyed good health. Then with a regular checkup, while in good health, the doctors were concerned with an arbitrary blood count number indicating low red cells, and treated the anemia by what? By the only thing they knew, the same as before, blood transfusions. Again she's in the hospital from that point on, progressively getting worse until she dies, from infections and unexplained organ failure which can not be explained by her original complaint, but can be explained by the use of blood.

How would you scientifically determine if a person died for lack of a BT? What analysis do doctos use to verify or show that a person died for refusal of BT? And are there any doctors or scientist that would guarantee in writing that a BT will save you life in any situation, or is a BT just one of several procedures that can be administered to save lives? Should a person way the benefits of any treatment or just take the Dr.'s suggestion because he/she's a professional? Let's gather and answer these questions before we make any assumptions. BTW well educated professional, experienced people said there HAD TO BE a war with Iraq because of WMD. "Most" of us went along with it got upset and angry and insisted those who thought it a bad idea were fanatics, ignorant and had no regard for American lives or security. Sorry I answered a question with a question.