Who has the right.

Ok, lets follow this through. Public health system is free. All travel costs, accommodation, (may be some limits here), costs are payed for by the gov't.

Hospitals are stretched, time is important to be able to work at your job to make it run efficiently, and as it seems in most parts of the world hospitals are stretched for time to care for their patients.

Now we have someone who wants to go out of the system.

This means a nurse will have to stop what they are doing to take blood. from more than one person The blood has to be tested so someone, (maybe more than one), will have to screen the blood in the lab. maybe the lab is busy but this has to take priority. Means something else has to be pushed back, (backlog gets bigger/longer). Just by chance the blood from one of the donor's has an anomaly and cant be used. Get another donor and repeat the process..................The resources required to appease one person when there is no scientific information that supports the the persons ideas, when there is perfectly good blood on hand that can be retrieved in 5 min by one person

Now if they wanted to pay for it then there is a private system that can be used. If they are in a private health fund they can pay for the whole operation and all costs. Doen't seem they are in one so they are using the public system
I was clear, the parents are footing the bill to supply screened blood. And in the US we are generally closer to the "payment phase" of Healthcare. We chose our plans according to cost or network (Hospital A or B or C) and what our copay (out of pocket $)might be. Some people choose plans that have zero $ out of pocket but that costs them in monthly fees. Many options beyond that too 1st $10k or $20K is out of pocket then everything is covered is a "high deductible" plan. Lot of plans fall between.
 
Last edited:
I should get to decide what goes into my body and into that of my infant child in any health care system.

I don't have a medical degree. Can do google search but to be honest, when i do there are so many different answers to my question. I have to sift through the chaff then background research on the people giving advice medically, to try to work out if they know, or are quacks. In the end i have to trust the medical system is there to help me to a greater extent than not. If i had that medical degree i could debate the merit of what they are doing to me or a loved one.
 
Screen name aside, I am not a doctor, only a Hunter Thompson fan. Individuals, in my opinion, bear the responsibility for their own health and should be free to make decisions regarding their own health.
 
I was clear, the parents are footing the bill to supply screened blood.
Yea but it's a hypothetical that isn't mentioned. It does say they had the donor blood was screened so maybe they did pay something or under the health system they may have got it done for free. Still would have to get the right quantity of blood to do the operation
Now if they wanted to pay for it then there is a private system that can be used. If they are in a private health fund they can pay for the whole operation and all costs. Doen't seem they are in one so they are using the public system
My answer is clear as well
 
“There are other cases of medical guardianship where parents don’t want the treatment for their child,” said Sue Grey, the family’s lawyer and a staunch anti-COVID vaccine advocate, according to the radio network Newstalk ZB. “This is the case where parents want better treatment for their child than the state is offering.”

That's fine; if the parents beliefs are so strongly held, then they can find another way to get the surgery and pay for it privately
 
I am a little surprised. I thought the question was "can parents supply "properly screened blood" for transfusions for their infant child who needs a surgery. Remove all the chaff, politics, who pays for the other stuff, country of origin and religious background from the question and it become really easy to answer, I would think. What am I missing?
 
Let us assume that the concerned parents are footing the screening bill.
I am a little surprised. I thought the question was "can parents supply "properly screened blood" for transfusions for their infant child who needs a surgery. What am I missing?
Now if they wanted to pay for it then there is a private system that can be used. If they are in a private health fund they can pay for the whole operation and all costs. Doesn't seem they are in one so they are using the public system
 
What you seem to miss here, taking it a step further, is that even if they are in a public health fund (all pay their fair share via taxing) they are paying for it too. They are not taxed less than you... (and they are supplying the blood...)
 
Hypotheticaĺy, I am a redhead. My wife is a redhead, my child is a redhead and redhead genes are rare. Do I have the right to have redhead blood donor's for my child's surgery?
 
An update.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-...-be-given-blood-from-unvaccinated-people.html

From Link above

"We need to offer this baby safe, quality blood product. We can't just give the baby any blood off the street," Prof Turner told The Project.
She said the point of the NZ blood services is to ensure people get safe blood, which requires matching the blood type and screening to make sure there aren't any real threats in the blood such as viruses like HIV and Hepatitis.
Prof Turner said doing a one-off emergency screening to get blood from someone who is unvaccinated to the baby would open up a whole other can of worms.
"Even if we could do that, then what if people think there is a problem and that's why we did it, so a hundred people ask us to do that and then 200 people, and we did it for no logical reason. We would be sort of opening up a problem that wasn't a problem," Prof Turner said.
"Even if it was possible, from which I understand from our health services it's not that simple, we'd be creating a bigger problem."
She would like to see people sit down and work through where their fears and anxieties came from to work through them and build trust.

The parents of the baby at the centre of the “unjabbed blood” case are “realistic” that blood products from vaccinated donors may have to be used in the baby’s heart surgery, their lawyer says.
But they insist that “the bulk” of the blood be unvaccinated,

Researched info​

Can anyone roll up their sleeve and donate blood for babies?​

It was possible that blood plasma would be needed for the open-heart surgery, and because that went to Australia for processing it would take too long if the family’s donors were used.

Any blood transfusion risks passing on infection, which is why donors have to meet certain screening criteria.
But young babies are even more vulnerable, so they have their own set of rules.
For starters, it’s blokes only. Women can’t donate blood for babies younger than four months, as pregnancy generates a higher risk of potentially dangerous antibodies.
Donors also have to have donated multiple times previously, and within the past six months, so they know their blood has no issues.
For newborns up to 4 months of age, the donor also has to be free of antibodies to cytomegalovirus (CMV). A virus in the herpes family, it’s mild for most healthy people, but can be dangerous for those with weakened immune systems. Because it stays in your body for life, about 60% of Kiwis have the antibodies........................... So that rules out three out of five potential donors.
Blood for kids older than four months does not have to be CMV-negative, because the way donations are treated should make the risk low anyway. But if the patient is not group-O blood type, the donation also has to be screened for the toxin haemolysin.
It’s not clear whether Starship Hospital has any specific blood screening rules for child surgery, but that can also depend on how sick the child is and the nature of the operation.
Faed says donations for babies are not a case of “just roll up my sleeve and have some blood pooled into a bag”.
Moving outside the carefully designed and tested donation process could put the baby at greater risk, he says.
“I think it would reduce the level of safety for the baby. The vaccine is long-since gone, and I don’t believe that is an issue.”


The parents of the baby at the centre of the “unjabbed blood” case are “realistic” that blood products from vaccinated donors may have to be used in the baby’s heart surgery, their lawyer says.
But they insist that “the bulk” of the blood be unvaccinated,
 
Covid vaccine isn't approved for 4-month-olds. The lady in the article says if they made this exception it would open the floodgates. No -- only for kids under 6 months where it isn't authorized. And this lady is no dumber than a lot of people in the vaccine manufacturing business...
 
Covid vaccine isn't approved for 4-month-olds. The lady in the article says if they made this exception it would open the floodgates. No -- only for kids under 6 months where it isn't authorized. And this lady is no dumber than a lot of people in the vaccine manufacturing business...
She was referring to the use of blood, not vaccinations. The exception to allow people to select blood from unvaccinated donors.
The age for covid vaccine isn't mentioned and isn't relevant.
 
She was referring to the use of blood, not vaccinations. The exception to allow people to select blood from unvaccinated donors.
The age for covid vaccine isn't mentioned and isn't relevant.
Oh, please. No, it's not about vaccinations, it's about vaccination components in blood. And the child in question is 4 mos. and in the U.S. the minimum age approved for vaccination components in blood is 6 mo. Nuttily pro-vaccine is no different than nuttily anti-vaccine.
 
Back
Top