fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
Exactly, Steve.
That is one of the problems with a recent paper published by Dr. Aryeh Shander. That paper is discussed in this thread here:
Not only did Shander and his research team drop out the patients who died in the first 24 hours but they also did not include the second surgery those bloodless patients may have had. The results of that study are useless because the methodology is flawed.
*to add-
another flawed research paper about bloodless surgery:
fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
steve2: By contrast, with elective surgery or surgery that can be planned ahead of time, alternatives to blood transfusions may well be available. Of note, JW organization has most to say about elective surgery, very little, if anything, to say about refusing blood following massive blood volume loss.
The WT doesn't tell the JWs that not everyone is eligible for alternatives to blood transfusions. Alternative treatment is not suitable for many patients. You have to have a certain level of health and age to undergo bloodless treatment.
That is one of the reasons that the many retrospective studies that have been done that compare no-blood to blood are misleading. Those who can have bloodless treatment are generally in better health than those who get blood. As well, those studies fail to take into consideration that elective bloodless surgery is often a two stage process. The studies only take into consideration the first bloodless surgery and not the second one that the patient has to complete the procedure.
fyi - don't think this has been posted here before.
in november 2016 the royal college of surgeons of england issued the following 40 page booklet:.
https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/college-publications/docs/caring-for-patients-who-refuse-blood/.
Doubtfully yours: Having said that, I feel so deeply indoctrinated that if right now I needed blood or an organ transplant to continue living, I would turn both propositions down.
By the way, a lady at my workplace is dealing with extra healthcare issues newly acquired since having a series of blood transfusions.
I understand the indoctrination and I have a question for you.
If the lady at your workplace was dealing with extra health care issues newly acquired since having a regime of antibiotics that did not agree with her, would you refuse antibiotics for your own personal health care?
day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).
see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).
jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.
RO: DId I say that I construed it.
Yes. You were the only one coming to that conclusion.
Stephanie had asked for 1.9 million. Redwood had said: " In Stephanie's case, she would have, in my opinion, won a much larger amount, possibly in the tens of millions."
The leap from possibly 1.9 million (we don't know if she got the entire amount she had asked for) to possibly "tens of millions" doesn't lead a sane and rational person to the conclusion that you offered.
day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).
see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).
jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.
RO: ... it could be construed...
Only you, Richard. Only you.
from the new york daily post - tuesday 21 february 2017, page 14. the headline in the newspaper is: exclusive - cop quits in grief - undercover traumatized over killing innocent man.
nypd undercover cop resigns as he struggles with grief from killing innocent man.
an undercover cop who fatally shot a bystander during a gun-buy operation has resigned from the nypd — too distraught to remain on the force, the daily news has learned.. the former detective, who sources say suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder, left the nypd in october with a tax-free disability pension.
DoC, if I could put more than one dislike on your post, I would.
Do you know anyone who suffers with PTSD? Ask them if they would trade that "free lunch" for a life without disability.
day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).
see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).
jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.
If Plaintiffs knew beforehand without a verdict from the Court that wt would be found legally liable by the Court, why did Plaintiffs agree to settle?
She "settled" because she got what she what she wanted. That is what civil court cases are all about - getting what you asked for.
If you went to court and asked for some sort of compensation and then the one who you have asked for that from gives it to you...why wouldn't you take it?
day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).
see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).
jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.
Fisherman: WT liability was not legally established -no verdict.
So What?
They settled. They accepted liability with the settlement.
Who's victim?
Fuck off.
day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).
see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).
jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.
Fisherman: 1.Colorful commentary has no legal merit.
So what?
2. No injunction was sought; Plaintiffs only wanted money money.
So what?
3. Moot. It is the Court's ruling and findings that is law; case settled without jury's adjudication; Plaintiff's settled for what they wanted- money..
So what?
I am really sick of hearing how victims are supposedly money greedy people. That is an accusatory position that does not take into account that the victims deserve that money. Of course they want money. Money is how our society functions - the victims require money for redemption and restitution.
Yes. The victims want money. What the f*** else would they be going to court for???
There is nothing wrong with a victim asking for financial restitution. Their lives have been destroyed and a bag of jelly beans doesn't do anything for them.
settlement came five days into trial... the wbats/jw's house of "god inspired/light is getting brighter/spiritual paradise" cards are starting to cave in before our eyes... .
https://www.revealnews.org/blog/jehovahs-witnesses-settle-lawsuit-alleging-coverup-of-child-sex-abuse/.
pbrow: I am sorry people, you can try and place blame on a religion all you want but if the FUCKING PARENTS of the child who was abused do not go to the police these kids are and will continue to be fucked!!
The parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. They follow the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Of course the parents are negligent - they have been instructed by their religion to place the org's health above that of their own child. Of course the religion is responsible. How could it not be a factor??
As long as parents follow the WTS' directives, the kids will continue to be fucked.
.
