Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine

Artificial Blood Made In Romania 232

Posted by timothy
from the high-demand-in-local-market dept.
First time accepted submitter calinduca writes "Artificial blood that could one day be used in humans without side effects has been created by scientists in Romania. The blood contains water and salts along with a protein known as hemerythrin which is extracted from sea worms. Researchers from Babe-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, hope it could help end blood supply shortages and prevent infections through donations." Wikipedia's entry on hemerythrin explains its unusual oxygen binding mechanism.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Artificial Blood Made In Romania

Comments Filter:
  • not flaming (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31, 2013 @12:48PM (#45291777)

    Would something like this be accepted by groups like Jehovah's Witness' that do not accept blood transfusions?

  • Re:not flaming (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeng (926980) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @01:05PM (#45291977)

    Although I understand your sentiment, but many new surgical techniques have been made because of Jehovah witnesses refusal to accept blood transfusions. Many of these techniques end up being better than the one they replaced and therefor all of society gains benefits.

  • Re:not flaming (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jeng (926980) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @01:58PM (#45292539)

    That's like saying that from all the crack babies born in the 80s, some went ahead and became doctors and programmers, so crack can't be all bad.

    Actually it would be more along the lines of "War is hell, but at least we make healthcare advances because of it."

    If you are wasting public resources to do these type of interventions, then only luck could turn them into something else than waste.

    No, people who have trained their whole lives to save people don't come up with new lifesaving techniques due to "luck". And do you know if they are using public resources do do those type of interventions, or are you just making wild speculations in an attempt to bolster your case that there are no positives outcomes of bloodless surgery?

  • Re:not flaming (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:01PM (#45292567)

    This is a flamebaity question, but: do you respect that they make that choice for their children?

  • Re:not flaming (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31, 2013 @03:11PM (#45293267)

    In the Hebrew Scriptures (the "old testament"), God's requirement was to, out of respect for taking the life of an animal and out of respect for the request of the animal's creator, the blood be poured out rather than put to use.

    In the Greek Scriptures (the "new testament"), the holy spirit guided the apostles to continue the prohibition on blood. They put it on the same level as fornication and idolatry, which makes it quite a serious matter.

    Biologically, it doesn't matter whether it's tissue-A or tissue-B, but since blood is especially singled out by these biblical commandments, we treat it differently. We don't eat it, we don't ingest it, we don't inject it. We "pour it out" so to speak; we do not use it. It's not about what's good for us, or what's useful, or what's handy to have. It's about following the instructions we're given. Personally, I have a bit of a rebellious streak in me. I challenge authority often. I try not to let it get me into too much trouble. But with Jehovah, I recognize his authority as absolute, and I do not challenge it. When he says "abstain from blood", I do so willingly. That's not to say it's blind acceptance, I still like to know why, but I don't challenge that instruction.

    And, yes, IAAJW.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...