funny how you applaud the decision of the court to walk all over the rights of others to decide for the best medical care and alternative medicine. blood tansfusions have always been the quick and dirty approach to a fix. it can and often does cover over sloppy surgery. people make the ASSumption that the transfusion of blood is the first and best approach to blood replacement, when it isn't. even the medical and scientific community recgnizes this, for all the factors involved.
so if anyone of you had a bad tooth, lets say. your first and only approach would be to pull the tooth out? what about all the other ways to fix the problem? after all pulling a tooth is the quickest, cleanest, cheapest way out, but by no means the only fix.
i recorded something off the medical discovery channel about blood replacement therapy and different research going on for alternatives to blood. the reasons they gave for this were many and reasonable. there was a guy on there who said he would never take blood because of all the risks involved (i believe he had gotten a disease from a previous transfusion). he also releated how someone gots AIDS
first no good people like, who bitch and complain about how 6 million+ JDubs don't give blood, but don't bitch about the other, let's be conservative and say 2 billion people, who can and don't (and then of course when one JDub does "crack" and takes blood -which appears to be what you really want anyway, you bitch about that too).
1. the blood supply reserve is low and it isn't because of a puny 6+ million Jdubs, it's the other 2 billion. people giving blood has dropped, dramatically.
2. contaimination of the blood supply which is still a very real threart no matter how many checks are done. Some, of which, is that way because people want to live a debauched life.
3. blood only has a refrigerated shelf life not more that 30 days (i think).
4. in times of war there simply is not enough blood around to transfuse, and we want our boys to get up off their backs as soon as possible so they can kill again
5 screening of blood is essentially moot (which the AIDS virus proved) how would they know how to test for the next great pathogen, by then it's too late for millions
6. The non-blood therapy has a non-refrigerated shelf life of two years, can be given to anybody, no risk of disease because the creation of it is controlled. and can be made into virtually limitless quantities.
----
this is a larger issue and bigger implications.
let me relate a story about a woman who went into the hospital with a bum/gum/bad leg. Her HMO said, "cut the damn thing off. we'll pay for that. if she wnat's to keep it she'll have to pay for it herself" -imagine that, the quickest fix is to cripple the woman for life. it's the fastest, cleanest, cheapest, and gets her over her problem immediately. but what are the long term affects? need i explain?
she said "shove it, i'm going to at least try another alternative/opinion." she stayed in the hospital for a month 'til everything got better, and it did. she kept her leg. her HMO said, "we ain't gonna pay for that. you didn't take our mandate on the recommended course of treatment." she sued them, and won. I guess you idiots would have had your leg taken off. and apparently you have never heard of a second opinion.
then you'll use the standard cop-out, of course, and say, "yeah, but this isn't the same." you only know one alternative because that's all your ever presented with. but people have another weapon, they can stay informed, more than ever before, and not just take their dr.'s word at the drop of a hat. dr's have fallen from the gods they used to be.
please
