Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps not all the details are correct but what I highlighted were the comments by the child and parents. These were submissions to the Court and can be easily enough substantiated. Don't you find it disturbing that a ten year-old may be permanently traumatised because he has received a blood transfusion in order to save his life?
i am sorry but this type of emotionally charged tabloid reporting is the level that you people must now stoop to. There are gross inaccuracies, for example, it cites that we believe that we must 'abandon from blood', to keep well???? no that is not what we believe its not even an accurate statement of our beliefs, you think they would have at least ...[text shortened]... rdly surprising that what one takes into ones mind, has serious consequences on ones thinking!
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Ki am disputing nothing, we claim the right of self determination based on our biblical understanding, why don't you cite the number of persons who have died as a result of blood transfusions, here ill start you off.
Are you disputing that people in the past have died because of a refusal to receive blood transfusions? Are you serious? They exist and the blame is totally on your organisation.
An independent report released in February examined the use of contaminated blood products in the United Kingdom's NHS during the 1970s and 1980s, which spread HIV, hepatitis and other bloodborne diseases. In their 113-page report, the researchers noted that 4,670 hemophiliacs in the United Kingdom contracted hepatitis C through blood transfusions during the late 1970s and early 1980s and that 1,243 of those people also contracted HIV. Of the people who contracted both HIV and hepatitis C, about 800 have died. As of February 2007, when the researchers initiated the study, 1,757 people had died as a result of the contaminated blood products (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 2/24).
4,760 persons were given Hepatitus C, as of February 2007, almost 2000 persons have dies in the UK alone through contaminated blood and you have the audacity to talk about being sick! research your subject you noob and stop reading tabloid newspapers!
Originally posted by Conrau Ki find your necessity for turning to tabloid reporting to substantiate your arguments even more disturbing!
Perhaps not all the details are correct but what I highlighted were the comments by the child and parents. These were submissions to the Court and can be easily enough substantiated. Don't you find it disturbing that a ten year-old may be permanently traumatised because he has received a blood transfusion in order to save his life?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRob , this report dates back to the 70's and 80's. It's hardly a representation of precedures that are in place nowadays is it?
i am disputing nothing, we claim the right of self determination based on our biblical understanding, why don't you cite the number of persons who have died as a result of blood transfusions, here ill start you off.
An independent report released in February examined the use of contaminated blood products in the United Kingdom's NHS during the 197 ...[text shortened]... to talk about being sick! research your subject you noob and stop reading tabloid newspapers!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie4,760 persons were given Hepatitus C, as of February 2007, almost 2000 persons have dies in the UK alone through contaminated blood and you have the audacity to talk about being sick! research your subject you noob and stop reading tabloid newspapers!
i am disputing nothing, we claim the right of self determination based on our biblical understanding, why don't you cite the number of persons who have died as a result of blood transfusions, here ill start you off.
An independent report released in February examined the use of contaminated blood products in the United Kingdom's NHS during the 197 ...[text shortened]... to talk about being sick! research your subject you noob and stop reading tabloid newspapers!
Firstly, those numbers are in fact quite small. Thousands receive blood donations a week in Victoria, Australia; I am sure an even greater number receive transfusions in America and in the UK. Secondly, the imminence of death surely outweighs the risk of Hepatitis C. In the last case I cited, the child would definitely require a transfusion in the process of his treatment. Without it, death would be inevitable. The risk of transmission is trivial in comparison. Thirdly, since the 1980s screening and testing has improved significantly. Reported cases of transmission are extremely rare in my country.
Originally posted by Proper Knobif you notice the details dear Noobster, it cites the year 2007, the contaminated blood was administered during the 70s and 80s, not that it makes a difference to those persons who have died as a direct consequence of contaminated blood when the report was compiled and finished.
Rob , this report dates back to the 70's and 80's. It's hardly a representation of precedures that are in place nowadays is it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe paper made a trivial mistake, printing the word 'abandon' rather than 'abstain'. It is hardly noteworthy. What I pointed to, however, were the court submissions. Are you denying their veracity? Do you want me to look up the relevant court hearing?
i find your necessity for turning to tabloid reporting to substantiate your arguments even more disturbing!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, it was a report written in 2007 that looked back at the 'blood scandals' that went on in the 70's and early 80's. As i said, it's hardly a representation of what happens 'today' is it?
if you notice the details dear Noobster, it cites the year 2007, the contaminated blood was administered during the 70s and 80s, not that it makes a difference to those persons who have died as a direct consequence of contaminated blood when the report was compiled and finished.
Originally posted by Conrau K5000 persons not big enough , eh
[b]4,760 persons were given Hepatitus C, as of February 2007, almost 2000 persons have dies in the UK alone through contaminated blood and you have the audacity to talk about being sick! research your subject you noob and stop reading tabloid newspapers!
Firstly, those numbers are in fact quite small. Thousands receive blood donations a week in Vict ...[text shortened]... ing has improved significantly. Reported cases of transmission are extremely rare in my country.[/b]
Estimates range from 6,000 to 10,000 haemophiliacs in the United States becoming infected with HIV - New York Times
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobshall i find a quotation that clearly states that blood screening is not one hundred percent guaranteed even today? also to diminish the consequences of what happened to those persons through the direct consequences of a blood transfusion is to condone the action! are you condoning the action dear Noobster?
Yes, it was a report written in 2007 that looked back at the 'blood scandals' that went on in the 70's and early 80's. As i said, it's hardly a representation of what happens 'today' is it?
Originally posted by Conrau Ksomeone else who wishes to condone the action and diminish the lives of those persons as almost inconsequential, five thousand is after all, just a number!
[b]4,760 persons were given Hepatitus C, as of February 2007, almost 2000 persons have dies in the UK alone through contaminated blood and you have the audacity to talk about being sick! research your subject you noob and stop reading tabloid newspapers!
Firstly, those numbers are in fact quite small. Thousands receive blood donations a week in Vict ...[text shortened]... ing has improved significantly. Reported cases of transmission are extremely rare in my country.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd today the risk for becoming infected with HIV via transfusion is less than 1 in 1.9 million, and of Hepatitis C less than 1 in a million. This according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct 2004. So what? Are you claiming that your silly invisible sky-father prohibits transfusions of the magical blood because of the medical risks?
5000 persons not big enough , eh
Estimates range from 6,000 to 10,000 haemophiliacs in the United States becoming infected with HIV - New York Times
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrare you also condoning the action? on what basis are you condoning the action? you must also realise that the world is bigger than America, that there are oceans, islands and other inhabited areas.
And today the risk for becoming infected with HIV via transfusion is less than 1 in 1.9 million, and of Hepatitis C less than 1 in a million. This according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct 2004. So what? Are you claiming that your silly invisible sky-father prohibits transfusions of the magical blood because of the medical risks?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm sure it isn't 100% infection free. But as i said pointing out something that went on 30+ years ago is not a fair representation of what is happenning today. In fact it's a sepcious argument in my view.
shall i find a quotation that clearly states that blood screening is not one hundred percent guaranteed even today? also to denigrate the consequences of what happened to those persons through the direct consequences of a blood transfusion is to condone the action!
Personally, if i was in a emergency medical room fighting for my life and i needed a blood transfusion, what are my options? Death or a blood transfusion that carries a minimal risk of infection? I know what i'd choose.