2006-10-18 15:40:14 · 6 answers · asked by pp 1 in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Injuries
Because people that need blood transfusions are usually in a critical state and could die if they don't get them.
2006-10-18 15:41:57 · answer #1 · answered by Min02 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the risks are relatively low with the current screening methods, and the people who need them are critical. Medicine makes decisions based upon the principles of risk versus benefit. Therefore, most would say, if the other option is death nothing is too risky!
2006-10-18 22:43:38 · answer #2 · answered by Brainiac 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And another thing - I got refused by UBS when I wanted to donate blood, because I was high(er) risk for BSE, having lived in England until 1993. They say there's no test for BSE. If there's no test - is the screening 100% ?
2006-10-18 22:45:23 · answer #3 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the people recieving the blood transfusions are going to die anyway. the transfusions is a risk but eather way they could die.
2006-10-18 22:46:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Arnt they tested for all those diseases nowadays? are they really all that dangerous anymore? i'm sure a few bad bags of blood get into the system, but i think the advantages outway the disadvantages.
2006-10-18 22:44:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the FDA routinely approves all kinds of sh!t that should have never been approved in the first place. vioxx, dalkon shield, thalidomide, baycol, etc. etc. etc. etc
2006-10-18 22:46:08 · answer #6 · answered by ErasmusBDragen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋