>>2. Nobody has insulted you in this thread. Jim has presented an opinion with which you disagree. Why is this kind of insult necessary?
>
>
>It isn't necessary. However I think it is appropriate.
>
To each his own. I think gratutious insults are rarely appropriate.

>
>
>Let's think about this.
>
>There is a substance called PolyHeme that is scientifically proven to increase the chances of surviving a life threatening loss of blood.
>
>Only more scientific experimentation can further establish the product's saftey and effectiveness.
>
>However, life threatening losses of blood aren't lab repeatable. They occur in the wild.
>
>Thus, in order to save lives, and further establish safe medical practices, the substance is not wholly approved, but approved for wider use.
>
>It seems obvious to me this is to save lives and to collect more scientific data on the safety and effectiveness of the new treatment.
>
>
>However, given the statements in this thread, the ideal of having complete and informed consent to the events of one's life takes a greater precedent over the possibility of keeping someone alive.
>
>That's small minded and selfish.
>
>
>Take it as an insult if you want, but I'd prefer that you put a little thought into it.


Has this substance been approved by the FDA? According to Jim's post (and I'll grant that I didn't do the research to verify the post), this is not the case. It is in a trial period.


Therefore.....

"There is a substance called PolyHeme that is scientifically proven to increase the chances of surviving a life threatening loss of blood."

is inaccurate when you say "scientifically proven." The trials are being used to scientifically prove that it will work as claimed. Until the results of the trials are known and the FDA has fully approved this treatment, it must be considered experimental. I don't want to be the subject of an experiment without my consent.

If it's not in a trial period and has been approved, then obviously everything changes.