Quote:
Originally Posted by christiangirl
You can call me ignorant but you're being ignorant of my point: Ish happens. People die from all sorts of things so, if a person WANTS the all-or-nothing option, they should be allowed to do so if it's available.
|
This made me think Kevorkian.
IIRC, patients go through trial-and-error with cocktails to make sure that they're getting the right combination. Once that's found, the risks go down greatly. Transplants/surgeries/etc carry a much greater risk, even with our advancements in medicine.
Re: "all-or-nothing" - Just because a patient thinks s/he knows what's best doesn't mean s/he actually does know what's best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetaj
Hmm, it says he received the transplant in 2007. They said he was fine and HIV-free in 2009, almost two years ago now. Sounds like they've given this time before releasing it to the public.
|
I think the point is that this is one case. They should have waited until more tests were done before giving everyone a potentially false sense of hope.
Threaded Mode
