Quote:
Originally Posted by Borla
I like how they automatically condition the statement so that the reader assumes the only negative factor was a rejection of a blood transfusion, and that the statement almost assumes it is 100% certain there would have been no other complications if she had had one.
Anyone whose done much medical research, or ever had family deal with major operations, transplants, or transfusions, realizes that there are often severe side effects that cause a negative outcome even when the "right" procedure is followed.
Many major medical centers are opening up entire "bloodless" wings or hospital units because of the growing belief that blood transfusions do more harm than good, religious beliefs aside. I think it is possible, maybe even probable that, within our lifetime, that that particular procedure will go the way of "bleeding" people to remove toxins and infection.
|
In case you weren't following the woman
died so any blood transfusion complications are rather trivial by comparison.
So while I think it was her right to make the wrong choice, lets not cloud the issue here. She didn't do something which could have saved her life and she died because of it. The fact that it was a blood transfusion is only a small part of the issue.
Now who knows if thats really what killed the woman in this case, being there are not a whole lot of details, but if it is as is claimed then, well oops.