11 ms·
> I also wonder whether religious groups who don't accept blood would potentially accept this. I understand they don’t accept blood from other people because t
by elboru 7y ago
> I also wonder whether religious groups who don't accept blood would potentially accept this.
I understand they don’t accept blood from other people because they believe the blood is tightly related to the soul. So if the blood is 100% artificial I don’t think they would have a reason to not accept it, unless they find another reason, and I’m sure some obscure group will find a reason to not accept artificial blood either.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y agoWith that reasoning, they probably wouldn't want "soulless" blood either.
- vorpalhex 7y agoExcuse me, I only accept organic non-GMO virgin blood...
- Karunamon 7y agoAt least in the case of one of those groups (Jehovah's Witnesses), it's based on a bit of text in the bible saying literally "abstain from blood". Transfusions are no good, including your own blood previously stored. Fractions and products are in a grey area though and left up to personal conscience.
- PyroLagus 7y ago> including your own blood previously stored Wait, really?
- Karunamon 7y agoYeah. It's not a soul thing (since they don't believe it souls) or an ownership thing, it's that you're taking blood into your body. Fractions and such are considered a grey area since it's not technically "blood" aymore.
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoI am a JW. Personally, I wont accept anything that I know of having been derived from blood. That would include the artificial blood mentioned here as it is so-derived (AFAIKT it has red blood cells and platelets). But, already existing blood volumizers are normally sufficient to save a person who suffered extreme blood loss; restoration of flow is more important than restoration of all the blood contents.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoI had experience with one such group (Jehovah's Witnesses), so I can speak only about them, but yes, I believe they would happily accept artificial blood. The transfusion ban for JWs is related to their interpretation of Bible's verses about blood as a symbol, and verses banning consumption of blood. They already accept some blood-derived medication; generally, the smaller subcomponent of blood something is, the more acceptable they find it.
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoI understand this is a personal matter but I will not accept anything that I know of having been derived from blood.
- Blakestr 7y agoI'm curious about the range of derivation from blood. For example, if I took a sample of your blood and made a product that was essentially cloning your blood, would that be the same? Some people's spiritual rejections lie more in the "we're playing God we shouldn't do x" whereas what you are describing is something in regard to the sanctity of the blood. Actually to further my understand, would you be permitted to receive blood that you yourself had donated and had been stored for your personal use in the advent of a medical emergency? Again, I'm not trying to pry or question the validity of your beliefs, just seeking to understand.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoGP may be more up to date, but from I remember from previous decade, cloning blood would be no-go, and so your own blood that was stored outside of your body. Cardiopulmonary bypass was AFAIR considered OK, because it's considered to be just an extension of body's blood flow.
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoThings have not changed much. Cardiopulmonary bypass is considered OK, as well as other devices that might be considered as extensions. An individual might still choose to not accept such treatment.
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoIf it was 100% artificial, I would absolutely accept it, personally. But it would have to be not in any way derived from blood.