Comments on: Blood transfusion row in Britain

By: kerwin

kerwin — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:03:11 +0000

I dislike interfering in situations that involve religion as I am anything but unbiased. Some may see this as a right to die situation and such a right does not exist. Chances are she believes that if she died it was God’s will because He has the power to prevent her death if He so chooses. I disagree because I believe you should not test God.

By: William Oliver

William Oliver — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:25:44 +0000

Your post is misleading. Banked blood loses *some* of its efficiency — not all, or even most. It has been, and continues to be, a lifesaving therapy. Your statement that “in MOST cases refusal of a transfusion has a BETTER outcome” is simply false — and is not supported by the article you link to. Further, of course, the article you link to notes that the best use of a transfusion is exactly the case of the woman who died because she did not get one. Finally, the simplistic tone of the article misses the point that those patients who receive transfusions receive them because they are at higher risk — it is not surprising that they have more complications; if they had uncomplicated surgery, they would not have needed a transfusion. Making these incorrect and silly claims about transfusion medicien is a disservice similar to the propaganda of the anti-vaccination or anti-flouridation idiots. People who make these kinds of claims are the “truthers” of the medical world, and are just as silly. In fact, blood transfusions would have likely saved this woman’s life.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:31:09 +0000

While the examples you give are interesting, the bottom line is that these people are being criticized and criminalized for their religious beliefs. What is so crazy is that if she would have voluntarily wanted to commit suicide, these same critics would be advocating the right to die.