Parents want unvaxxed blood transfusion

[SomeRandom]

I thought you referencing the notion of COVID vaccines containing living creatures, not the NZ case.

Oh sorry. I tend to be a bit scatter brained by default lol
So I probably was, just forgot

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This case is in New Zealand.

Yeah, and the sane, rational, reasonable part of the world can see where that road leads. It's not good, you don't want it. Even bridges are worth burning in such a situation in order to keep such an infestation out. Because of America we can say there must be a firm line drawn where the parent is not absolute authority. Some kids are hurt by something they were forced into by their parents because it's what the parent want (Wisconsin v Yoder should serve as a good warning) and with a case such as mentioned by the OP you can see where the next stepleads to--special privileges and exemptions for religion--is a step in a direction that can potentially embolden those who want no treatment at all. That road also leads to a return of things like measles and polio.
And NZ did stumble towards that by failing such a refusal of treatment as abuse.

 

[stvdv]

Parents want unvaxxed blood used
And found a donor they have faith in

Nowadays they can quickly check wether blood of anyone is suitable for operation

So, instead of bringing this case to court I would suggest to not delay the operation

Unvaxxed donor is available, so:
a) Lab tests donor's blood, don't waste time in court
b) IF vaxxed blood is good fine, ELSE random good blood

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nowadays they can quickly check wether blood of anyone is suitable for operation

So, instead of bringing this case to court I would suggest to not delay the operation

Unvaxxed donor is available, so:
a) Lab tests donor's blood, don't waste time in court
b) IF vaxxed blood is good fine, ELSE random good blood

So did you...

A) Not read your own article?
B) Read it but not understand what they were saying about the risks of this? Or
C) Read it, understand it, and disagree with it?

If C), do you care to say what you disagreed with?

 

[stvdv]

So did you...

A) Not read your own article?
B) Read it but not understand what they were saying about the risks of this? Or
C) Read it, understand it, and disagree with it?

If C), do you care to say what you disagreed with?

Fact is:
It has not scientifically been proven that vaxxed blood won't have negative impact

Such scientific proof would clearly take much much longer than 3 years

 

[Wildswanderer]

Child of Parents needs operation, and probably blood transfusion

Parents want unvaxxed blood used
And found a donor they have faith in

State (judge) rules against parents

Right or wrong in your opinion?

I am curious what JW think about this: So @nPeace, @Hockeycowboy, @YoursTrue, @Vee,

And @Frank Goad, @Seeker of White Light

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...inated-donor-blood-case-what-you-need-to-know

Parents choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fact is:
It has not scientifically been proven that vaxxed blood won't have negative impact

Such scientific proof would clearly take much much longer than 3 years

Try reading my post again and actually answering the question that I asked this time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Parents choice.

Parents' rights are predicated on the assumption that parents have their children's best interests at heart.

When this assumption proves wrong - e.g. when parents refuse life-saving medical treatment for their child - it's entirely appropriate to step in.

Parents are stewards of their children, not their owners.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Parents' rights are predicated on the assumption that parents have their children's best interests at heart.

When this assumption proves wrong - e.g. when parents refuse life-saving medical treatment for their child - it's entirely appropriate to step in.

Parents are stewards of their children, not their owners.

Unvaccinated blood isn't a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unvaccinated blood isn't a problem.

Someone else in the thread who either didn't read or didn't understand the article in the OP.

 

[stvdv]

Try reading my post again and actually answering the question that I asked this time.

Why?

 

[stvdv]

Parents' rights are predicated on the assumption that parents have their children's best interests at heart

You didn't read the article well

 

[stvdv]

Someone else in the thread who either didn't read or didn't understand the article in the OP.

You

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why?

Just my - probably wrong-headed - hope that I can actually have a real discussion with an informed, coherent COVID denialist.

 

[SomeRandom]

Fact is:
It has not scientifically been proven that vaxxed blood won't have negative impact

Such scientific proof would clearly take much much longer than 3 years

It’s not scientifically proven that vaxxed blood will provide a negative impact

By the way, generally speaking, you can’t actually prove a negative
Fun fact.
(Little nerd joke there.)

 

[Shaul]

FTA: "One of the reasons is because directed donors - who may know the patient their blood is destined for - may purposely answer screening questions incorrectly if they know the truth would stop them from being able to donate."
That is so weak. It also ignores the same thing is just as likely (donors answering incorrectly) for the general blood system.

If the parents want to use a specific blood source and are willing to pay the costs, they should be allowed to do so. Others with agendas should stay out of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FTA: "One of the reasons is because directed donors - who may know the patient their blood is destined for - may purposely answer screening questions incorrectly if they know the truth would stop them from being able to donate."
That is so weak. It also ignores the same thing is just as likely (donors answering incorrectly) for the general blood system.

No, it isn't as likely. Why would you think it is?