Surely they can run tests for 'comparability' and if the unvaxxed clean blood passes the test, they just do what the patient asks, ffs.
Again I say, stop defending the indefensible. Either the doctor didn't care, was lazy, or truly believes that vaccinated blood is harmless. And we all know that it ain't. Even you must know that, Mister Stuck-In-His-Ways.
But try this. WHAT IF vaccinated blood can be harmful, especially to babies. Why take that chance with a young life? Why?
#MedicalHubris
Your statement is fact that we all know that vaccinated blood isn’t safe is simply not true. You didn’t answer the question. Millions of transfusions. Over a billion doses. One tenuous sob story with holes in it bigger than the Grand Canyon. You simply cannot draw the conclusion you assume and therefore the rest of your statement is crap.
As for your other questions do I have any problems with directed donation in a case like this? Absolutely not. I would assist in arranging it and have in the past. As for transfusions to babies I don’t like pediatrics to begin with. It’s why I practice adult medicine. Pediatrics is as heart wrenching as it comes because you either have really sick kids with bad disease or totally crazy parents. Neither of which is pleasant.
All evidence points to restrictive techniques is blood transfusion. So I only transfuse when absolutely necessary (demonstrated lack of oxygen carrying capacity). But when you have to, you have to. The parents in this case consented to an operation that has a high risk of transfusion. They either must not have believed there is an issue with blood supply or they went against their beliefs. Additionally they could have refused transfusion even postoperative. But they cannot even ascertain what happened.
This story stinks like head cheese and you dear Bagster know it. I would pick a different illustration of your theory than this one because this one just is gibberish.
Love the Santa hat on your smiley face. You have panache at least.