View Full Version : Blood transfusions?
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 03:12 PM
Right after a discussion today at work that got rather 'Heated' i would like your honest opinions so organs IN A NUTSHEL!.....
Do you believe in blood transfusions?
This is very poorly worded and missed information! it was suppose to be from day one of invetion are blood transfusion's worth there weight?
or would the world have been better off ?
mods please delete if this is going to cause issue, again can only apologise and i know and am glad for blood transfusion's.(See also post 31)
SoulKiss
17-01-11, 03:19 PM
Well if it was a case that my body is SUPPOSED to be able to magically seal up an artery if cut and produce enough blood in a very short time (like instantly) to mean that I don't die, then why not, lets go down the survival of the fittest route.
While we are at it, lets stop all Cancer/Diabetic/Others research, we are only wasting money keeping these "less good" specimens alive, after all if these things turn out to be genetic, if they die before they breed, then the gene pool is a little cleaner - eh?
Dont be dim. Human life has meaning and value, and if, without causing suffering then it can be prolonged, then it should be.
gruntygiggles
17-01-11, 03:22 PM
Right after a discussion today at work that got rather 'Heated' i would like your honest opinions so organs IN A NUTSHEL!.....
Do you believe in blood transfusions?
i am of no religion but simple do not believe people should have them your body cannot sustain you to live then your time is up.
In simple terms its survival of the fittest...
Opinions on a postcard?
But our evolution, our brains, our skills and dexterity, our emotions, compassion and advanced intelligence (minus those you see on Jeremy Kyle) mean that it is no longer a case of survival of the fittest. It is more like survival of those that have access to the life saving medical help...or those who can afford it in some countries.
Personally, it's a grey area. There is no right or wrong...as you say, it's an opinion based subject.
For me, there are family members that are only still here today because of transfusions.
Then there's my grandad. He was refused transfusions when he was dying as it was "not doctors rounds for another hour". If he's been given a transfusion, he could have also been given morphine and passed away quietly. As it happened, no transfusion = no morphine = passed away in immense pain, knees up against his chest writhing in pain. I'd have given anything for him to have had a transfusion that day.
I don't think it's a debate that should ever get heated as it is all about opinion. For me though, it's an option that's available for many beneficial uses and I would not hesitate to give my consent for anyone that needed it. When you lose lots of people you love, you'll do anything to hang on to those that you still have.
Religion wise, it's not for me to say...I'd respect another persons wishes as I would hope that they would respect my own.
allantheboss
17-01-11, 03:24 PM
I think you'd think differently if you fell off your bike, lost severe amounts of blood through shallow wounds, became unconscious, and the only think necessary to resuscitate you was a blood transfusion.
Would you really want the paramedics to look at you at shrug?
Owenski
17-01-11, 03:27 PM
Tomski, I love you but your a fool boy!
Transfusions save thousands of lives each year, innocent victims in road traffic accidents would otherwise die - had they not been saved then thats not survival of the fittest thats just execution of the unfortunate.
Many women would have died during child birth,
I dare say a few members who've passed through here will have had one following an off. (Fault or none-fault).
I wouldnt say transfusions are common place, but I know one lad (chris our keeper seen as you know him too) who's dads life was saved just before xmas following been admitted to hospital severely aniemic. It saved his life and along with it it therefore saved a family not just a horrible time but possible financial ruin as his work currerntly supports most the family.
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 03:28 PM
I think you'd think differently if you fell off your bike, lost severe amounts of blood through shallow wounds, became unconscious, and the only think necessary to resuscitate you was a blood transfusion.
Would you really want the paramedics to look at you at shrug?
This is exactly the point of the argument because thats not due to illness or poor health that is due to some kind of accident.
again its simply for peoples opinions not to be abused for what people say or believe.
Thanks for the honest responses so far.
gruntygiggles
17-01-11, 03:30 PM
Another thought. Survival of the fittest in my opinion is based around predetermined factors like lack of strength, hereditary health issues etc. Therefore would have no bearing at all on a person in good health who is hit by a car, shot, involved in an accident. We have the ability to help....it would be inhumane not to.
For the record, I personally think everyone born has a basic right to a healthy life...with all the help we can give where it is needed.
I think you'd think differently if you fell off your bike, lost severe amounts of blood through shallow wounds, became unconscious, and the only think necessary to resuscitate you was a blood transfusion.
Would you really want the paramedics to look at you at shrug?
If that were the case I wouldn't be here now. The above scenario is exactly what happened to me. open fracture of the pelvis and internal bleeding. I lost several pints of blood.
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 03:45 PM
This is exactly the point of the argument because thats not due to illness or poor health that is due to some kind of accident.
again its simply for peoples opinions not to be abused for what people say or believe.
Thanks for the honest responses so far.
But surley if due to an accident your body is unable to susstain your life this in your mind would also mean you shouldn't have a transfusion?
it is a load of rubbish! we have the advancement in medical science, and they should be used to the full to alow people to carry on living. No matter the reason, if people were to have an accident like coming off the bike, if they can be keped alive by any means they should.
if people are ill the same. I myself was diagnosed with cancer when i was 18, and although i was very lucky and didn't need any transfusions simply chemo and radio therapy keped me going, a transfusion was next on the list. and i can ensure you if, as, and when (i really hope you dont) you are ever faced with a similar condition, you will take everything to ensure that you are able to get better, and get over the problem that you face.
In my example to say that people shouldn;t have blood transfusions to get over cancer when no life choice of mine, or my families caused it i should be allowed to die, but someone who takes the active desision to ride a motorbike and was to have a accident that put his or her life at risk should have a transfusion...... what a load of crock. Everyone should be given the same possibilities to maintain there life no matter what the reason!
Speedy Claire
17-01-11, 03:46 PM
I`m wondering if you`ve started this thread to cause outrage? your rationale that if a person`s body can no longer sustain them then your time is up? maybe you should consider a career in politics...... imagine how much money you`d save the NHS and the country as a whole each year if you were in charge!!!
So............ personal feelings aside (as I wouldn`t be here today had I not received a blood transfusion following childbirth) just imagine how many deaths there`d be every year if you were in charge!
would people with cancer not be allowed to receive life saving treatments?
how many premature and very young babies would die as a result of not receiving blood transfusions?
how many innocent victims of RTA`s would die?
how many people would die because organ transplants would be stopped?
how many diabetics would die because their bodies would not sustain them without medical intervention and treatment.
The list goes on and on!! we have people on this site who would die or would have died had your peculiar rationale been enforced, thank god it hasn`t.
I guess you're not joking, are you??
Whether it was an accident, or an illness I'd vote to give the blood transfusion unless the patient was of sound mind and had chosen DNR/no further treatment.
Just think how much the NHS would save a year. And all the ambulances could be painted black and used to take patients straight to the mortuary. Less beds reqd, less doctors and nurses, less hospitals, more empty houses. Hell man, you've sorted the budget deficit in one go!
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 03:52 PM
I guess you're not joking, are you??
Whether it was an accident, or an illness I'd vote to give the blood transfusion unless the patient was of sound mind and had chosen DNR/no further treatment.
Just think how much the NHS would save a year. And all the ambulances could be painted black and used to take patients straight to the mortuary. Less beds reqd, less doctors and nurses, less hospitals, more empty houses. Hell man, you've sorted the budget deficit in one go!
This is very true, if someone was to be choose DNR etc then fair point, we shouldn't be putting money into it. It is a personal option for people to make. And although i can fully understand why people would choose DNR IMO the vast majority wouldn't
If I didn't believe in them I wouldn't be donating my very useful blood (O+) on Wednesday to help other people.
'Survival of the fittest' doesn't mean survival of the strongest. This is one of the most common misunderstandings stemming from evolutionary theory
It means the survival of those who best 'fit' their environment - well actually it means if any of their genes give them some survival value in their environment, then those genes will be passed on in future generations.
I think the skill of blood transfusions (from our superiour brains which have been able to develop such techniques) could count as a survival enhancer, therefore all down to evolution.
Long may it, and other other life saving medical interventions that us wise humans can invent, survive and breed!
if it was not for wonderful people giving blood and the ability of the NHS to do transfusions i would be dead.
a big thanks to all NHS staff and those that give blood, i am forever in your debt xxx
I personally think it should be compulsory to give blood and be on the organ donors registers, providing that this doesn't clash with any religious or moral beliefs/objections, just because people with no such beliefs/objections haven't made the effort to register or don't know about it.
Giving blood takes up ~ 20mins every say few months, hardly a major trouble to help out someone else...
Bluewolf
17-01-11, 04:14 PM
.
benji106
17-01-11, 04:21 PM
I personally think it should be compulsory to give blood and be on the organ donors registers, providing that this doesn't clash with any religious or moral beliefs/objections, just because people with no such beliefs/objections haven't made the effort to register or don't know about it.
Giving blood takes up ~ 20mins every say few months, hardly a major trouble to help out someone else...
Hmm not sure about that. I think the organ donor scheme should be opt out rather than opt in. I am a registered organ donor, I dont have any objection to giving blood apart from the fact I am a pussy when it comes to needles. Never bothered me until I had a bad reaction to the BSG jab in school and since then not really got on with them. Just mind over matter I suppose, probably should man up and go and give blood to get over it.
This is exactly the point of the argument because thats not due to illness or poor health that is due to some kind of accident.
again its simply for peoples opinions not to be abused for what people say or believe.
Thanks for the honest responses so far.
So even if u had some warped sense of
morals for us humans in 'eradicating illnesses' by letting them die out, how could u justify not fixing the hole in a newborn babies heart knowing that it is genetically impossible to pass on the condition.
Everyone deserves the same quality of healthcare, regardless of age/sex/race/religion (and believe it or not) the illness/accident or whatever theyre suffering from.
But then surely u dont believe what ur saying do you?
yorkie_chris
17-01-11, 04:32 PM
I would like to see you have balls to refuse treatment if so afflicted yourself.
No atheists in foxholes and all that
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 04:33 PM
i also agree, giving blood etc should be opt out not opt in. I would love to be able to give blood and be on donor lists, however due to my previous medical history they wont take it!!!
Well if it was a case that my body is SUPPOSED to be able to magically seal up an artery if cut and produce enough blood in a very short time (like instantly) to mean that I don't die, then why not, lets go down the survival of the fittest route.
While we are at it, lets stop all Cancer/Diabetic/Others research, we are only wasting money keeping these "less good" specimens alive, after all if these things turn out to be genetic, if they die before they breed, then the gene pool is a little cleaner - eh?
Dont be dim. Human life has meaning and value, and if, without causing suffering then it can be prolonged, then it should be.
First post said it all. Well done Soul Kiss.
I honestly can normally see how people have varying opinons, but yours baffles me.
I wouldn't be here without blood transfusions - my Grandad had his left leg amputated in WW2 and received transfusions - without it he wouldn't have made it home to marry my Nan...
Personally I give blood and would be very grateful that others had should the need for it ever arise.
I don't think that Tom really thought this through...
Opinion on a postcard is, no I don't agree with a word you say.
As for religious nutcases who deny transfusions, well it's not a matter of opinion. To those that would refuse a transfusion to a child, eg because it's a rhesus baby, I have nothing but contempt.
Harry_Mc
17-01-11, 05:08 PM
hmmm if you're a biker and you dont believe in transfusions maybe bikes are not for you :) Perhaps join the jehovas witnesses... they dont believe in them either.
davepreston
17-01-11, 05:10 PM
14 months old burst appendixs mins away from death
30 years old served country in warzones, married, tax payer, biker and friend to the masses
thanks to a bloody good surgen and blood transfusion
mmmmm let me think which is better for the world
if it was not for wonderful people giving blood and the ability of the NHS to do transfusions i would be dead.
a big thanks to all NHS staff and those that give blood, i am forever in your debt xxx
You are very welcome
........................As for religious nutcases who deny transfusions, well it's not a matter of opinion. To those that would refuse a transfusion to a child.................I have nothing but contempt.
+1
Simple scenario. You have a child that will die without a transfusion. What would you do?
Fizzy Fish
17-01-11, 05:19 PM
Simple scenario. You have a child that will die without a transfusion. What would you do?
I had a baby a month ago who was ill and needed a transfusion on his second night, due to the impact of complications around the birth.
After the transfusion he recovered brilliantly and is 100% fine. There was no underlying medical condition and he just needed a helping hand, as so many recipients of transfusions do.
Transfusion does not = terminally ill patient. When such a simple thing can save so many lives, and benefit society to such a degree, why wouldn't you?!
And TBH also for terminally ill patients, if it helps make someone feel better why not??
Daft idea for a thread IMO...
Fluffer
17-01-11, 05:24 PM
:laughat:
+1 can I request a punctuation change - apostrophes do my head in and this thread is top of the list every time I log in on my phone :)
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 05:41 PM
WHOAAAA fires out linch mob :( i think i have worded this very poorly and for this i can only apologise.
the start of this thread was not as it first seemed, as in stop all transfusion's now... it was suppose to be at the very start so day one of invention. were they a good idea or not ? have they proved there worth or would the world be better off if illness was dealt with before live begins (which took us on to the next discusion if you know your baby is going to suffer should you give birth or abort)
i can only apologise again for any confusion.
Fizzy Fish
17-01-11, 05:47 PM
WHOAAAA fires out linch mob :( i think i have worded this very poorly and for this i can only apologise.
the start of this thread was not as it first seemed, as in stop all transfusion's now... it was suppose to be at the very start so day one of invention. were they a good idea or not ? have they proved there worth or would the world be better off if illness was dealt with before live begins (which took us on to the next discusion if you know your baby is going to suffer should you give birth or abort)
i can only apologise again for any confusion.
Now there's a whole new can of worms! :lol:
...and do you give a transfusion to a woman who is bleeding after an abortion...
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 05:50 PM
tell me about it this is me a nieve 22 year old talking to 3 women :( was only ever going to end in me = wrong.
gruntygiggles
17-01-11, 05:50 PM
Now there's a whole new can of worms! :lol:
+1 :-)
We don't live in a perfect world. Even if you have religious belief, it is undeniable that your god did not make the world the place it was cracked up to be. Else, how can you explain human suffering?
So given that the world is not perfect, and never will be, we have to do our next best and fix it as best we can. Blood transfusions included.
SoulKiss
17-01-11, 05:53 PM
WHOAAAA fires out linch mob :( i think i have worded this very poorly and for this i can only apologise.
the start of this thread was not as it first seemed, as in stop all transfusion's now... it was suppose to be at the very start so day one of invention. were they a good idea or not ? have they proved there worth or would the world be better off if illness was dealt with before live begins (which took us on to the next discusion if you know your baby is going to suffer should you give birth or abort)
i can only apologise again for any confusion.
Usually this is reserved for duplicate threads, but
HITLER THREAD !!!
Maybe you should go read the history books about a chap in Germany in the 30s/40s that had some ideas along those lines.
Then read a bit more about the thousands of people who gave their lives so that those perfectly logical but oh, so flawed ideas didn't come to pass...
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 05:53 PM
I think it may be best to leave this one at, everybody dissagrees with you Tom!! ;)
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 05:54 PM
Usually this is reserved for duplicate threads, but
HITLER THREAD !!!
Maybe you should go read the history books about a chap in Germany in the 30s/40s that had some ideas along those lines.
Then read a bit more about the thousands of people who gave their lives so that those perfectly logical but oh, so flawed ideas didn't come to pass...
+1
but i dont think that he is saying people should die because they are week, i think we may have slightly got the wrong end of the stick.
However that said i still think the 'stick' that we have the wrong end of is a slightly missinformed one either way
have they proved there worth or would the world be better off if illness was dealt with before live begins
yes they have proved there worth as they've saved countless lives, which in turn has probably saved even more lives (their kids/parents/brothers/sisters etc).
What do you mean by illness? And by 'dealt' with, do you actually mean not dealt with, ie left to die?
Who decides who lives and who dies anyway? And what about if you're illness is curable and you can't genetically pass it on?
Would you ideally like to sterilise every single human who has any form of illness that can be passed on to your kids? An Austrian dude with a 'tache had similar ideas not long ago!
^crud, soulkiss beat me to it.
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 05:55 PM
I think it may be best to leave this one at, everybody dissagrees with you Tom!! ;)
+1
one of those conversations you just wish youd never opened your mouth and i sharnt be again lol
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 05:58 PM
+1
one of those conversations you just wish youd never opened your mouth and i sharnt be again lol
Haha, just as long as is was a misunderstanding on our behalf and it isn't just that you hate all minorities and week people then thats just fine!! otherwise the mob will be out again!! :)
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 05:58 PM
yes they have proved there worth as they've saved countless lives, which in turn has probably saved even more lives (their kids/parents/brothers/sisters etc).
What do you mean by illness? And by 'dealt' with, do you actually mean not dealt with, ie left to die?
Who decides who lives and who dies anyway? And what about if you're illness is curable and you can't genetically pass it on?
Would you ideally like to sterilise every single human who has any form of illness that can be passed on to your kids? An Austrian dude with a 'tache had similar ideas not long ago!
illness was anything that would kill someone else passed on to.
dealt with was either find a cure or let them live there life but not pass it on.
not sure who decideds didnt get that far.
and if it cant be passed on its not a problem.
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 06:01 PM
Haha, just as long as is was a misunderstanding on our behalf and it isn't just that you hate all minorities and week people then thats just fine!! otherwise the mob will be out again!! :)
oh im to blame i cant type an what i did type was wrong ... i dont hate anyone and tbh lets face it eventully some idiot that cant drive will prob knock me off and i will need blood transfusion my self so all for it.
oh and i do give blood !!!!
Tom_the_great
17-01-11, 06:02 PM
Haha, just as long as is was a misunderstanding on our behalf and it isn't just that you hate all minorities and week people then thats just fine!! otherwise the mob will be out again!! :)
oh im to blame i cant type an what i did type was wrong ... i dont hate anyone and tbh lets face it eventully some idiot that cant drive will prob knock me off and i will need blood transfusion my self so all for it.
oh and i do give blood !!!! the blood van was in work today (Which started the whole thing)
Jimmy2Feet
17-01-11, 06:06 PM
oh im to blame i cant type an what i did type was wrong ... i dont hate anyone and tbh lets face it eventully some idiot that cant drive will prob knock me off and i will need blood transfusion my self so all for it.
oh and i do give blood !!!! the blood van was in work today (Which started the whole thing)
I'm only kidding mate! i dont think you hate people, i wont be looking out for you!!! :smt093:smt093
:p
SoulKiss
17-01-11, 06:12 PM
I'm only kidding mate! i dont think you hate people, i wont be looking out for you!!! :smt093:smt093
+1 on that.
Its what happens on here - someone says something without proof reading, people jump in, things sometimes get a bit heated, people back down/revise opinions, person Y goes away thinking that person X involved in convo is a waste of space.
Then the AR rolls round, person Y gets drinking with person X without knowing who they are, finds out its person X, tells them that they intended ignoring them if they were there, but actually you're ok and buys them another drink.
At least thats MY experience of this place,
Oh and while I am reminded - Happy Birthday Quiff :)
BigBaddad
17-01-11, 06:16 PM
I gave 470ml of my finest today. 470ml odd number that. Think I'll nip to the sperm bank and make it a full half litre of bodily fluids donated. Can someone give me a hand.
while we are on the subject of blood. i was thinking about donating some of the red stuff but i was chatting to a friend who said 'once you have received blood you cant give blood' is this true?
personally i think its a load of shizz.
Speedy Claire
17-01-11, 07:03 PM
while we are on the subject of blood. i was thinking about donating some of the red stuff but i was chatting to a friend who said 'once you have received blood you cant give blood' is this true?
personally i think its a load of shizz.
Yep it`s true........ if you`ve received a blood transfusion you are unable to donate blood and it`s a lifetime ban. This is why I can no longer donate blood.
Stephen Hawking; now wouldn't we have been better off without him.
Prime reason why everyone, no matter what their physical problems, deserves the right to be able to contribute to this world.
Hmm not sure about that. I think the organ donor scheme should be opt out rather than opt in. I am a registered organ donor, I dont have any objection to giving blood apart from the fact I am a pussy when it comes to needles. Never bothered me until I had a bad reaction to the BSG jab in school and since then not really got on with them. Just mind over matter I suppose, probably should man up and go and give blood to get over it.
That's what I meant, you should be on the list unless you 'opt out', and donating blood should be too, unless you have religious/moral/phobias etc views
Next crazy Tom idea is that we should all have personalised plates:smt120;)
For the avoidance of doubt that was a joke:rolleyes:
@ Big Baddad, if you shoot 30 ml - wow:cool:
I always wanted to join the SERV (service by emergency rider volunteers) bloodrunners whilst Ive been at uni. http://www.serv.org.uk/
On call once a fortnight, get to ride your bike and save a life transporting donated blood in your area. Sadly you can't have any points on your licence, so that was me out. Once they're wiped off, I'm for sure gonna sign up!
davepreston
17-01-11, 08:05 PM
Yep it`s true........ if you`ve received a blood transfusion you are unable to donate blood and it`s a lifetime ban. This is why I can no longer donate blood.
as said earlier ive had a blood transfusion and have gave blood since, without issue
Milky Bar Kid
17-01-11, 08:06 PM
What a misguided thread! lol!
think we all agree we would take one if offered....expect irons probably because he likes to argue.... (that was a joke btw..... ;) )
Milky Bar Kid
17-01-11, 08:07 PM
Yep it`s true........ if you`ve received a blood transfusion you are unable to donate blood and it`s a lifetime ban. This is why I can no longer donate blood.
Was told the other day that when giving blood that this is only the case if you receive blood before a certain date due to CJD screening not being in place prior to that date. Although can't remember the date...lol!
as said earlier ive had a blood transfusion and have gave blood since, without issue
and the recipient failed a breath test?;)
Speedy Claire
17-01-11, 08:19 PM
as said earlier ive had a blood transfusion and have gave blood since, without issue
Then your transfusion must have been prior to 1980 or else you didn`t tell them about your transfusion?
The action was taken in 2004 to minimise the risk of transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. If you click on this link, go to the last question and click on that it will state that you can no longer donate and will give you the reason for this.
http://www.blood.co.uk/giving-blood/faqs/
and the recipient failed a breath test?;)
...and does 20 a day:D
The exclusion on date is to have recieved blood after 1st Jan 1980, and as Dave isn't as old as he looks, he should really have been excluded ;)
The rest of the rules are at https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp
tell me about it this is me a nieve 22 year old talking to 3 women :( was only ever going to end in me = wrong.
The text above your avatar sums this up perfectly...Tom the great member
Owenski
18-01-11, 09:56 AM
The text above your avatar sums this up perfectly...Tom the great member
rofl, good spot.
Tom I'll be round to give u a wet fish slap later on.
its amazing how a thread turns round! However my mum had 20 units on standby for a pioneering operation so I agree with them. Also seen the agony of a family split when a friend who wasn't a practising JW needed a transfusion and her parents denied it. She wasn't well enough to talk herself.
I give blood were i can but I never get the required amount - its almost as if my body wants to hold on to it!
Harry_Mc
18-01-11, 11:39 AM
I think if jw's want to refuse it that's fine, but I don't think they should be allowed to impose their religion on their kids if it will endanger their lives.
Most NHS trusts have procedures to make an emergency application to the Court to get permission from the judge if the parents are being nobs. Even at weekends/middle of the night.
Harry_Mc
18-01-11, 11:48 AM
That's fortunate... They shouldn't even have to ask... Minutes can make the difference between life n death
Tom_the_great
18-01-11, 12:21 PM
rofl, good spot.
Tom I'll be round to give u a wet fish slap later on.
haha you couldnt put any power in it with that bad back! on a side note i have found that bracket didnt know if i told you so jsut wenever we catch up ill remember it
haha you couldnt put any power in it with that bad back! on a side note i have found that bracket didnt know if i told you so jsut wenever we catch up ill remember it
Stop trying to change the subject;)
Stop trying to change the subject;)
EXACTLY what I thought, but I didn't post it!
Tom_the_great
18-01-11, 12:48 PM
ha-ha ... thread is still alive and its carried on at work with mixed veiws from all parties and some just plainly moan pass comment then walk away..
SoulKiss
18-01-11, 12:49 PM
ha-ha ... thread is still alive
What, like it got some kind of a transfusion or something?
:)
Tom_the_great
18-01-11, 12:51 PM
What, like it got some kind of a transfusion or something?
haha no it never needed one its prefectly healthy has a little tash too ;)
as a card carrying organ donor (basically take everything if I've carked it) - I have a SLIGHTLY complicated way of looking at this...I believe everything should be done to heal someone until they can be questioned as to what THEY want - then if it is a case of "no, leave me to die" then respect their wishes. In the case of religious people, IMO they have the final say in what their children can recieve WHETHER I AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT - morally (and legally) they are the last say.
On a slightly different angle - I know SK and I disagree with medical attention if it comes from questionable sources i.e. if the nazi's developed life saving "X", then should it be used in the future? I say I wouldnt want it used on me, but have no trouble if others make the opposite choice, SK said he would use it if it meant a loved one would live, no matter the consequences (like, never being talked to again). If this is too off topic, pls ignore :)
Yep it`s true........ if you`ve received a blood transfusion you are unable to donate blood and it`s a lifetime ban. This is why I can no longer donate blood.
Me too. After being given blood which saved my life, I wanted to return the favour but was told I couldn't donate. I was then gutted as I had never given blood before.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.