quote:
I suspect it wouldn't be ok because their concern is more likely the vaccine is harmful and there is likely to be some harmful remnants of it still in vaccinated blood.

People have all sorts of beliefs about medical harms, but if there's not a medically-justified reason, their belief is going to be similar to Jehovah's witnesses, except it won't have come from a religious community but from a highly-pilled epistemic community.

If I'm the doctor, for these highly technical procedures I do take into consideration the patients request but only to a point. Once that point is reached and there is an impasse either a higher authority assumes liability for me to move forward or the patient gets another doctor.

This post was edited on 11/30/22 at 1:25 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by TigerDoc

Texas

Member since Apr 2004

9915 posts

Posted on 11/30/22 at 1:31 pm to GumboPot

quote:
If I'm the doctor, for these highly technical procedures I do take into consideration the patients request but only to a point. Once that point is reached and there is an impasse either a higher authority assumes liability for me to move forward or the patient gets another doctor.

I agree. For this specific issue, I think the track record of vaccination and transfusion are important. We've been transfusing people for many decades and vaccinating people for hundreds of years. I don't know of any harm that comes from receiving vaccinated blood. Could there be a new harm from a new vaccine? Sure, but if you had to sort blood for every new vaccine product that came into the population it would be massively onerous and for no proven justification and people would end up refusing transfusions that would be safe and beneficial to them.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board