DISCLOSURE: THIS POST MAY CONTAIN AFFILIATE LINKS, WHICH MEANS WE MAY RECEIVE A COMMISSION IF YOU CLICK A LINK AND PURCHASE SOMETHING. PLEASE CHECK OUT OUR DISCLOSURE POLICY FOR MORE DETAILS.
“Thanks to an unusual loophole in the strict rules of medical ethics, hundreds of trauma patients in California, Texas and a few other states will be taking a gamble when ambulances come to scoop them up after accidents or acts of violence.”
Wired News: Fake Blood, Real Controversy
“JUST SAY NO TO POLYHEME!” Oh wait, you’ve just been hit by an eighteen wheeler, you can’t.
Wired News: Fake Blood, Real Controversy
“JUST SAY NO TO POLYHEME!” Oh wait, you’ve just been hit by an eighteen wheeler, you can’t.
if technology can saves life…what s wrong with that ?
There’s nothing wrong with using technology to save lives, however using an untested artificial blood substitute on patients who are unable to give their consent to be experimented on when real blood could be used instead is unethical, opportunistic, and scary. This type of experimentation should take place in a lab or in case studies, not on unwilling trauma victims.
Paramedic to Patient: “Sir, you’ve been critically injured. We can give you real blood to save you, or use this mostly untested, artificial blood that might work just as well, but have unforseen side effects.”
What would your answer be? The point is, this question isn’t even being asked – they’re using it on people anyway, without their consent.
if you knew anything about this trial you would know that the choice was NOT between real blood and Polyheme but between saline (saltwater) and polyheme. One carries no oxygen and the other does.
Now which choice would you make?