Might the aphorism "there is no indication in medicine for a pint of blood" lie behind some of the residual morbidity and mortality of surgery?

Reconsideration of, and some uncertainty about, the risks of whole blood transfusion are stimulating renewed debate around and about transfusion policy. This essay -- 1) considers probable risks of retreating in fright from the approach which has significantly reduced the morbidity and mortality of surgical operations over the last 100 years, so that we may balance them against the known and putative risks of transfusion. 2) questions the universality of the aphorism "There is no indication in medicine for a pint of blood" -- because it presumes and implies that everyone can "tolerate"/not be harmed by/minor blood loss, or minor hypovolaemia from any other cause, and leads surgeons and anaesthetists to aim at "minimising" the degree and duration of hypovolaemia during surgery rather than to prevent it entirely. 3) proposes that circulating volume deficiencies, including small ones, are intrinsically intolerable pathological events to be prevented by a "positive" policy aiming at normovolaemia throughout operative procedures by "priming" patients about to undergo major operations with volume expanders before surgery, minimising their intraoperative blood loss, giving non-blood plasma expanders until dilution threatens significant anaemia, and whole-blood transfusion as a last resort when it does. 4) proposes that averting "minor" short-lived circulating volume depletion might avert the residual "minor" morbidity and mortality caused by venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, bronchopneumonia, intestinal ileus, postoperative abdominal distension, wound and anastomotic dehiscence, fat embolism, (alone or in various combinations) and give us a greater (insight into and) control over fluid and electrolyte balance.