The Hazards of Belief

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Don't know if you've watched Matewan P, well worth a punt if you haven't

Regarding Sunday work, it is also worth remembering that the small retail sector is currently being hammered by on-line vendors where a large part of their sales come at the weekend. I think putting many of them under more pressure will simply force them out of business, where the Aldi's and LIDL's of this world could suck it up without too much impact. As such, I'm of the opinion that restricting Sunday working hours doesn't benefit us.

It is generally the case that liberalisation of retail trading hours is supported by large retailers and opposed by small retailers, and that when trading hours are liberalised that is followed by increased domination of the retail market by the large retailers, and a reduction in competition.

In short, liberalisation of trading hours has bad outcomes for workers and bad outcomes for small businesses. It has mixed outcomes for consumers - more choice about when to buy, e.g, groceries or clothing but less choice about who to buy them from. The unqualified winners are the large retailers.

You'd think the denizens of a forum devoted to advocating scepticism would be able to nut this out for themselves instead of mindlessly swallowing the kool-aid doled out by Bloomberg, the tool of the capitalist oppressors.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is generally the case that liberalisation of retail trading hours is supported by large retailers and opposed by small retailers, and that when trading hours are liberalised that is followed by increased domination of the retail market by the large retailers, and a reduction in competition.

In short, liberalisation of trading hours has bad outcomes for workers and bad outcomes for small businesses. It has mixed outcomes for consumers - more choice about when to buy, e.g, groceries or clothing but less choice about who to buy them from. The unqualified winners are the large retailers.

You'd think the denizens of a forum devoted to advocating scepticism would be able to nut this out for themselves instead of mindlessly swallowing the kool-aid doled out by Bloomberg, the tool of the capitalist oppressors.

put some numbers on it? you seem to be trying to sneak in all the effects of large retail companies under sunday trading which would obviously be nonsense.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

put some numbers on it? you seem to be trying to sneak in all the effects of large retail companies under sunday trading which would obviously be nonsense.

It would obviously be nonsense but, no, that's not what I'm saying. Obviously, large multiple are squeezing out small independents anyway; that's how they get to be large multiples. The point is that the liberalisation of trading hours tends to intensify this.

I'm not, off the top of my head, able to put figures on this, or pull up cites. I looked into it a few years ago when, in the place where I am now living, there was a referendum on proposed extensions to Sunday trading. (The proposal was defeated).

You can, though, skip the literature review and cut to the chase by just looking at how the various trade bodies, interest groups, etc tog out whenever there is a proposal in this area. The large multiples are enthusiastic supporters; the trade unions and the independent traders, in rare alliance, are opposed. And you can safely assume that they are all seeking to serve their respective intersets. It's not necessary to hypothesize that they are the pawns of sinister papal brainwashing to explain what's going on.

silverharp

in the online age though its very marginal. if you were to survey online companies they would love Sunday trading to be abolished as a lot of people wouldnt wait til Monday but would look for the items on line.

also in your argument is an implicit subjective value judgement about large v small retailers. there is no "correct" structure

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

in the online age though its very marginal. if you were to survey online companies they would love Sunday trading to be abolished as a lot of people wouldnt wait til Monday but would look for the items on line.

I think that depends. The supermarkets are certainly keen on Sunday opening. Clothing retailers are also aware that there's a signficant cohort who want to feel the fabric and/or try on the garment before they are comfortable buying. That goes in spades for shoe retailers. Whereas, say, booksellers and the suppliers of entertainment in various media would lean the other way.

silverharp wrote: »

also in your argument is an implicit subjective value judgement about large v small retailers. there is no "correct" structure

True, but irrelevant to my point, which is that peoples' attitudes here are driven by their own interest more than by their religious belief.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think that depends. The supermarkets are certainly keen on Sunday opening. Clothing retailers are also aware that there's a signficant cohort who want to feel the fabric and/or try on the garment before they are comfortable buying. That goes in spades for shoe retailers. Whereas, say, booksellers and the suppliers of entertainment in various media would lean the other way.


True, but irrelevant to my point, which is that peoples' attitudes here are driven by their own interest more than by their religious belief.

religious belief cant be a reason in itself , and the trading rule seems like a very diluted form that one is not supposed to work on sunday. they didnt envisage a society where some people have to work 24/7

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

religious belief cant be a reason in itself , and the trading rule seems like a very diluted form that one is not supposed to work on sunday. they didnt envisage a society where some people have to work 24/7

If "they" refers to the Hebrew culture that came up with the "keep holy the sabbath day" rule, they certain did envisage a society where some people have to work seven days, since they had dairy produce.

(They didn't envisage a society where some people would have to work 24/7 but, then, neither do we. You'd die within a very short time from lack of sleep if you tried that.)

Religion aside, I think pretty well all societies come up with conventional social patterns of work and rest, since having a balance between the two is, basically, good for us, and a society which has structures that promote this will do better than one that doesn't. And there's merit in the idea of shared, common patterns of work and rest, since the quality of my recreation time is greatly enhanced if my nearest and dearest have recreation time which overlaps with it. You don't need to be remotely religious to arrive at insights like this, or to seem the merit in defending existing work/recreation patterns even if you have no stake at all in the religious justifications offered for them. So the idea of the 40-hour week and the two-day weekend as the norm for employment has a lot of appeal to people who don't particularly care that one of the two days is Sunday.

(We're possibly getting a bit away from the hazards of belief here, and trespassing on the tolerance of others. Just sayin'.)

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

If "they" refers to the Hebrew culture that came up with the "keep holy the sabbath day" rule, they certain did envisage a society where some people have to work seven days, since they had dairy produce.

(They didn't envisage a society where some people would have to work 24/7 but, then, neither do we. You'd die within a very short time from lack of sleep if you tried that.)

Religion aside, I think pretty well all societies come up with conventional social patterns of work and rest, since having a balance between the two is, basically, good for us, and a society which has structures that promote this will do better than one that doesn't. And there's merit in the idea of shared, common patterns of work and rest, since the quality of my recreation time is greatly enhanced if my nearest and dearest have recreation time which overlaps with it. You don't need to be remotely religious to arrive at insights like this, or to seem the merit in defending existing work/recreation patterns even if you have no stake at all in the religious justifications offered for them. So the idea of the 40-hour week and the two-day weekend as the norm for employment has a lot of appeal to people who don't particularly care that one of the two days is Sunday.

(We're possibly getting a bit away from the hazards of belief here, and trespassing on the tolerance of others. Just sayin'.)

just to clarify, I meant some people have to be working at every hour of the day. Public transport for example is a near necessity on a Sunday . People have to keep power stations running during the night and other institutions have to be run on a 24/7 basis like hospitals and prisons, police yada yada.
At the end of the day nearly every employee has at least 1 or 2 "rest" days during the week which is the important thing.
tolerance of who? you lost me

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

And there's merit in the idea of shared, common patterns of work and rest, since the quality of my recreation time is greatly enhanced if my nearest and dearest have recreation time which overlaps with it. You don't need to be remotely religious to arrive at insights like this, or to seem the merit in defending existing work/recreation patterns even if you have no stake at all in the religious justifications offered for them.

I suppose you have to look at what people's preferred form of recreation is these days though, and who has to forego getting a Sunday off to support it. In Ireland in the past, it included going to church so the poor priest was the fall guy having to work Sundays. Today, entirely miserable as it may seem to me, retail therapy seems to be the preferred form of recreation for many, so the humble IKEA worker has that cross to bear. That said, I enjoy my wander around the farmers market on a Sunday after a stroll in Marlay with the family, and do appreciate the good folks running it on my day off. Whatever about retail in general, we accept and expect a number of people to work for us on days we have off. Where would you draw the line? Coffee shops and cafés, street markets, leisure and outdoor activity centres?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is generally the case that liberalisation of retail trading hours is supported by large retailers and opposed by small retailers, and that when trading hours are liberalised that is followed by increased domination of the retail market by the large retailers, and a reduction in competition.

It was traditionally the smallest shops which had the longest opening hours. They even named a TV series about a corner shop "Open All Hours".

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It was traditionally the smallest shops which had the longest opening hours. They even named a TV series about a corner shop "Open All Hours".

Yes, I know. Often they have legal exemptions that allowed them to be open when larger shops have to close. You can see, then, why they would oppose a general extension of trading hours; it deprives them of one of their competitive advantages.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. Often they have legal exemptions that allowed them to be open when larger shops have to close. You can see, then, why they would oppose a general extension of trading hours; it deprives them of one of their competitive advantages.

It is fair point, in that you could argue that what would be more beneficial than a general extension of trading hours would be a specific extension to facilitate many smaller business concerns, high street retailers and those that provide a core value to the community. I suspect that particular train left the station quite some time ago, and that the mall rats are the new village shoppers.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is fair point, in that you could argue that what would be more beneficial than a general extension of trading hours would be a specific extension to facilitate many smaller business concerns, high street retailers and those that provide a core value to the community. I suspect that particular train left the station quite some time ago, and that the mall rats are the new village shoppers.

It left that station in Ireland, because we have generally relaxed laws regarding trading hours. And this is broadly true in the Anglo-American world which for the past couple of decades has been signficantly influenced by Thatcherite and/or neoliberal political philosophies.

But it's not necessarily true elswhere. Specifically in continental Europe there are countries where trading hours are much more regulated - Italy and Germany among them. And those countries very often do have exemption for small business or family-run businesses. (And I think when the issue is discssed the rationale for maintaing these rules often includes the social benefits of retaining a denser network of modestly-sized shops.)

As for Poland, where the issue is currently under debate, I have no idea if the current Polish law on the subject carves out a space for small businesses with longer retail hours. But it wouldn't at all surprise me if it did.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

It left that station in Ireland, because we have generally relaxed laws regarding trading hours. And this is broadly true in the Anglo-American world which for the past couple of decades has been signficantly influenced by Thatcherite and/or neoliberal political philosophies.

But it's not necessarily true elswhere. Specifically in continental Europe there are countries where trading hours are much more regulated - Italy and Germany among them. And those countries very often do have exemption for small business or family-run businesses. (And I think when the issue is discssed the rationale for maintaing these rules often includes the social benefits of retaining a denser network of modestly-sized shops.)

As for Poland, where the issue is currently under debate, I have no idea if the current Polish law on the subject carves out a space for small businesses with longer retail hours. But it wouldn't at all surprise me if it did.

does it make any difference, Germany is the home of Aldi and Lidl and if you flick through the report below in terms of groceries Germany is more concentrated than the UK

http://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/plusm/article/viewFile/3872/2259

MrPudding

Aside from the bakeries, obviously, it is nigh in impossible to find anything open on a Sunday here France. I have not actually looked into the law in this area, but pretty much everything is shut. Small retailer, large retailers, even the likes of Ikea and other very large out of town retailers.

You do get a very few convienience stores, but not many. For example, I need to go to the next village for the nearest, and it is only open until 1300hrs.

When I used to visit here, before we moved, I found it terribly inconvienient. But I have to say now, I quite like it. I like the idea that people have a day where they can be fairly sure their friends and family will be off. That is a nice thing. I don’t particularly miss being able to go to a physical shop and buying whatever I want or need on a Sunday. I have survived.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

Live-streaming priest believes Catholic Church must embrace social media

Fr Gerard Galvin, who will hold a Christmas Day Mass in Durrus in west Cork that will be broadcast live on Youtube, believes that the Catholic Church must embrace social media if it is to spread its word.

"Young people spend so much time on social media and on gaming that you have to wonder whether they are able to discriminate between what is real and what is fiction."

:pac:

robindch

In 2017, there was some good news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42402420

and some less cheery stuff:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse

Happy 2018!

recedite

robindch wrote: »

In 2017, there was some good news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42402420

GM people are lauded, but GM food, not so much.

Hotblack Desiato

Video:
https://twitter.com/GalwayLatinQtr/status/948260352134991872/video/1



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-filmed-driving-through-storm-eleanor-waves-felt-god-will-look-after-me-1.3344046

A social worker who was captured on camera driving her car along the Salthill promenade as Storm Eleanor raged has said she didn’t fear for her safety as she knew God would “look after” her.

Selina Callaghan (28) said she felt “cool, calm and collected” as she drove along the surging waterline towards safety on Tuesday night.

“I feel close to God there. I know that he will look after me. I don’t need to fear.”

Social worker ffs. If the experiences of 20th-century Ireland taught us anything, it's that god will not 'look after' vulnerable kids.

CabanSail

Did nobody tell her that God was away on holidays. He went to his son's birthday bash and will be gone for a while.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

In 2017, there was some good news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42402420

and some less cheery stuff:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse

Happy 2018!

Unfortunately, some experts believe such tough decisions exceed our political and psychological capabilities. “The world will not rise to the occasion of solving the climate problem during this century, simply because it is more expensive in the short term to solve the problem than it is to just keep acting as usual,”

With politicians and CEO's working to exceedingly tight timeframes (where it concerns own survival) one can't imagine where the solution to this, and all the other problems, would come from.

When, ever, has mankind gotten together en masse to solve a threatening to most/all scenario. One that involves his taking the most dramatic and sacrificial measures. The only time I can think of is WWII - but that was because of a direct and immediate threat to own way of life. We will fight to preserve our preferred way of life.

Loathe as I am to "prophesy" end of days, it does seem we are further up ****s creek than ever before. The ability to destroy ourselves when the inevitable fight for resources comes is the difference this time round.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

With politicians and CEO's working to exceedingly tight timeframes (where it concerns own survival) one can't imagine where the solution to this, and all the other problems, would come from.

When, ever, has mankind gotten together en masse to solve a threatening to most/all scenario. One that involves his taking the most dramatic and sacrificial measures. The only time I can think of is WWII - but that was because of a direct and immediate threat to own way of life. We will fight to preserve our preferred way of life.

Loathe as I am to "prophesy" end of days, it does seem we are further up ****s creek than ever before. The ability to destroy ourselves when the inevitable fight for resources comes is the difference this time round.

I'd take a slightly less pessimistic view on it that politicians are basically slow moving and reactive where as individuals we can see the need for more proactive and agile behaviour. Politicians will make the right decision once the option of repeating the wrong decisions they've become so heavily invested in will see them lose power. I doubt we see the end of days so much as the end of gross consumerism and ever expanding populations, where our generation will have marked its place in the history books as a bunch of gluttonous wasters. In biblical terms, at this point in time we are the plague of locusts. While we've have major culling events in the past such as war and disease, future generations will hopefully be better at controlling their own numbers. As for Christianity and similar religions, it is really long past the time where they should reconsider the whole 'go forth and multiply' message.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I'd take a slightly less pessimistic view on it that politicians are basically slow moving and reactive where as individuals we can see the need for more proactive and agile behaviour. Politicians will make the right decision once the option of repeating the wrong decisions they've become so heavily invested in will see them lose power.

The fact I've just finished a season of House of Cards might be influencing my view

I doubt we see the end of days so much as the end of gross consumerism and ever expanding populations, where our generation will have marked its place in the history books as a bunch of gluttonous wasters.

I suppose I'm not sure how the junkie is to be weaned off his fix. Addicts don't really care about anything but the hit and we seem to be well along the path of chasing the dragon when it comes to consumerism. Maybe there will be a natural ending to it - we see the marginal difference between a 1000 euro smartphone and one costing 150 euro for what it is and turn away ourselves.

I doubt it though..

In biblical terms, at this point in time we are the plague of locusts. While we've have major culling events in the past such as war and disease, future generations will hopefully be better at controlling their own numbers.

Since mankind hasn't changed his spots, there's no reason to suppose the underlying drivers won't reappear

As for Christianity and similar religions, it is really long past the time where they should reconsider the whole 'go forth and multiply' message.

I would have thought populations are declining in Christian parts of the world?

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have thought populations are declining in Christian parts of the world?

That is more in formerly Christian parts of the world.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

That is more in formerly Christian parts of the world.

If ever they were as Christian as supposed. Christendom not equaling Christianity


Although it will be a long time (if ever) before the society-structural effects of Christianity will disappear.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose I'm not sure how the junkie is to be weaned off his fix. Addicts don't really care about anything but the hit and we seem to be well along the path of chasing the dragon when it comes to consumerism. Maybe there will be a natural ending to it - we see the marginal difference between a 1000 euro smartphone and one costing 150 euro for what it is and turn away ourselves.

Hmm, not sure equating rampant consumerism with heroin addiction is a great metaphor. The former make up the larger part of our society, the latter number among its outcasts. I think what we're actually seeing is social progression failing to keep pace with technological progression. That isn't to say there hasn't been significant social progression in recent decades. We've come from being a country of god-fearing, misogynistic, homophobic farmers to where we are now in a comparatively short period of time. So while there are those who look at the past with rose tinted glasses, I'd contend that today's Ireland is a kinder place. I'd put excessive consumerism down to being mis-sold happiness by the large corporations and something to be solved by education in the longer term

robindch

smacl wrote: »

That isn't to say there hasn't been significant social progression in recent decades.

There certainly has been significant social progress in Ireland, and - for whatever reasons - the wide gaps which exist between the rich and the poor in some other anglo-facing countries hasn't really influenced politics and society here - the efforts of a small number of disruptive, dishonest, populist thugs in the Dail notwithstanding.

The US commentator and academic, Robert Reich, puts the dangerous trajectory of the US/UK into some overall perspective here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSlHVZpNxMM

smacl wrote: »

to be solved by education in the longer term

And by investment in infrastructure and human services, especially health.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

And by investment in infrastructure and human services, especially health.

Agreed, but I think beyond equality we need to re-evaluate what makes us happy or unhappy, knowing how to recognise when we're unhappy and respond appropriately. As such, I think exploring and adopting certain more philosophical ideas is important. Much like morality this was something that established religion tried to ring-fence for itself in the past, and for those of us that aren't religious I think there is still great value in taking time to understand these things. And on the subject of happiness and consumerism, here's one that makes me smile;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnv-QO99CII

Huntergonzo

Not sure if this is the right thread but I have a question (possibly a stupid one):

So I was in the Mater hospital this morning as a patient for the first time and they were taking my details, you know: Name? Age? Occupation? etc etc.... then out of nowhere, Roman Catholic yes?

I was a bit surprised because I can't remember the last time I was asked that, I politely said no religion. Now obviously I took no offense to the question (I'm not that precious, infact I love annoying the easily offended), but why was I asked this question? Is there an important reason?

I needed a mole on my arm looked at, does it really matter if it's a catholic mole, a protestant mole, a muslim mole or an atheist mole etc?

I hope it doesn't, I hope I didn't give the wrong information!!! 😯

oscarBravo

I'm pretty sure that it's to cover the possibility of killing you while looking at your arm. If you're someone who wants some stripe of god-botherer or witch-doctor nearby when you're on the way out, they want to know who to call.

recedite

I've been asked that question in (St) Vincents and St Columcilles (Loughlinstown) also when attending for non-life threatening stuff.
What these all have in common AFAIK is original ownership by RCC religious orders.
It would be interesting to do a survey of all Irish hospitals and see if it is always one of the first questions they ask you, or whether its just some hospitals.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

It would be interesting to do a survey of all Irish hospitals and see if it is always one of the first questions they ask you, or whether its just some hospitals.

It's asked in all hospitals as it has more to do with determining the type of treatment you'll receive based upon your religious beliefs, or indeed none.

For example I recently had a hip replacement operation done, the hospital didn't even have the consent forms available at the time for if you weren't a Jehovah's Witness but didn't want to receive blood transfusions. No, they're a separate form - one for Jehovah's Witnesses, and one for... anyone else

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's asked in all hospitals as it has more to do with determining the type of treatment you'll receive based upon your religious beliefs, or indeed none.

For example I recently had a hip replacement operation done, the hospital didn't even have the consent forms available at the time for if you weren't a Jehovah's Witness but didn't want to receive blood transfusions. No, they're a separate form - one for Jehovah's Witnesses, and one for... anyone else

I hope the hip replacement went One eyed Jack, I believe they're a great job when you get up and going.

Listen I'm not a believer, but that aside, the last person I want to see in a hospital is a priest, it really means you're screwed when they send in the priest instead of the doctor!

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's asked in all hospitals as it has more to do with determining the type of treatment you'll receive based upon your religious beliefs, or indeed none.

For example I recently had a hip replacement operation done, the hospital didn't even have the consent forms available at the time for if you weren't a Jehovah's Witness but didn't want to receive blood transfusions. No, they're a separate form - one for Jehovah's Witnesses, and one for... anyone else

Best of luck with the new hip.
I'm not buying your theory though, because the question is not adequate for that purpose. For example, if you are a catholic that does not want a blood transfusion, asking your religion does not glean the right info. Similarly, finding out whether catholic or protestant has no bearing on the matter.
The only time it might be relevant is when the patient is gravely or terminally ill. At other times "do you have any special medical requirements?" or something along those lines would be the appropriate question.

recedite

After some years, good news reaches us that the age old dispute between cattlemen and farmers in central Nigeria has been solved by the threat of a curse. (a real curse, not just expletives)

He called on Fulani people in the area to lay down their arms and embrace peace for people to go about their activities freely.
“We, the elders and leaders of the Fulani, will put machinery on ground to check the activities of our people to ensure that they do not invade anybody’s farm.
“We have given two weeks to all our people to make sure that total normalcy returns to the area,” Bello-Adejo said.
He warned members of the association, who were in the habit of destroying farm crops intentionally, to desist forthwith or be ready to face the wrath of the law.
“The Fulani elders and leaders would place a curse on anyone who violates the peace agreement,” he warned.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Best of luck with the new hip.
I'm not buying your theory though, because the question is not adequate for that purpose. For example, if you are a catholic that does not want a blood transfusion, asking your religion does not glean the right info. Similarly, finding out whether catholic or protestant has no bearing on the matter.
The only time it might be relevant is when the patient is gravely or terminally ill. At other times "do you have any special medical requirements?" or something along those lines would be the appropriate question.

Cheers lads

Yeah when I say the question is asked by way of determining the type of treatment you'll receive, it also helps the people in charge of your case get a better understanding of your lifestyle (how a person might be assumed to live according to their religious practices, no pork in their diet for example), or any number of other factors that medical professionals might need to consider as part of their medical history or their treatment.

In my own case it definitely caused a few head scratchers alright, from nurses who told me "that won't be a problem", to the anaesthetist who near had a conniption fit - "who told you it wouldn't be a problem? What's the problem? Are you a Jehovah Witness? Have you thought about the consequences of this?" etc :pac:

This article might help explain it better, it's about understanding a patients needs. It's not the only question, but it's an important one nonetheless -

http://minoritynurse.com/honoring-religious-practices/

recedite

I have to point out that your own hospital experience kind of undermines your argument that your religion predetermines the kind of treatment that will be required/preferred.

What is your objection to blood transfusions anyway, not being a JW?

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

I have to point out that your own hospital experience kind of undermines your argument that your religion predetermines the kind of treatment that will be required/preferred.

What is your objection to blood transfusions anyway, not being a JW?

It doesn't really. HG asked why they'd ask the question in the first place, and I don't agree with the way it was assumed he was RC, but as an atheist I can understand why he wouldn't understand the relevance of the question - as he points out, a priest is of SFA use to him in any case But that isn't necessarily the case for other patients who may have certain religious beliefs that have to be taken account of in both their diagnosis and treatment options.

As for my own objections to transfusions, it's not merely based upon the hazards of any irrational beliefs -

Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients

And in my own particular case, I had a certain advantage in being overweight that there was less risk I would need a transfusion anyway -


Obesity Won't Affect Joint Surgery Safety: Study


I was talking to a friend about this who works in medical science and they mentioned that there is a culture in the medical profession of giving transfusions where they aren't necessary, and I know there are other options available in other countries that are less expensive, but they aren't very commonly used here, such as blood recycling -


Recycling a Patient's Lost Blood During Surgery Better Than Using Banked Blood

oscarBravo

I'm generally inclined to the view that doctors know more about how to treat me than I do. The idea of telling a surgeon I don't want a blood transfusion because of something I read online... I dunno if I could do that and still criticise anti-vaxxers.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm generally inclined to the view that doctors know more about how to treat me than I do. The idea of telling a surgeon I don't want a blood transfusion because of something I read online... I dunno if I could do that and still criticise anti-vaxxers.

Absolutely, I'm absolutely of the view that doctors and any medical professionals know more about how to treat my condition than I do, but I know more than any doctors or medical professionals what I am, and am not prepared either to risk, or to live with afterwards, or indeed die before I would live with it, as the case may be.

It's certainly comparable to anti-vaxxers, but I wouldn't immediately condemn them wholesale. I don't agree with some of them, I can understand where others are coming from, but I wouldn't view them as all the same or coming from the same place or perspective.

recedite

I think it was back in the early 1990's that some guy running the Irish blood transfusion service had a nixer going in which he was buying blood from desperate (often homeless) people in the USA, via his own private company, and then selling it to the service (himself, but wearing a different hat) for use in Irish hospitals. So the more blood they used, the more profit he made. As a result, numerous Irish people contracted hepatitis.
So yeah, I can understand somebody not being a fan.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

I think it was back in the early 1990's that some guy running the Irish blood transfusion service had a nixer going in which he was buying blood from desperate (often homeless) people in the USA, via his own private company, and then selling it to the service (himself, but wearing a different hat) for use in Irish hospitals. So the more blood they used, the more profit he made. As a result, numerous Irish people contracted hepatitis.
So yeah, I can understand somebody not being a fan.

Remarkably similar to this particular crowd -


Controversial multibillion-dollar health startup Theranos just got a huge seal of approval from the US government


Can read more about them on Wikipedia, nothing wrong with the science per se, but their business practices were highly questionable!

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I think it was back in the early 1990's that some guy running the Irish blood transfusion service had a nixer going in which he was buying blood from desperate (often homeless) people in the USA, via his own private company, and then selling it to the service (himself, but wearing a different hat) for use in Irish hospitals. So the more blood they used, the more profit he made. As a result, numerous Irish people contracted hepatitis.
So yeah, I can understand somebody not being a fan.

I've never heard of that. Do you have a source for it?

I mean, I heard of Hepatitis being caused by contaminated Anti-D, but what you're describing sounds completely different.

recedite

I can't find much about it on the web, just this bit about a golden handshake. But IMO there was a lot more shenanigans going on there than was ever disclosed, and of course the most essential part of the deal when getting rid of somebody associated with an embarrassing episode is always the "non disclosure" part.

Also just found this more recent occurrence which I hadn't noticed before.

Health Minister Simon Harris was informed as early as last January that an Irish patient had tested positive for hepatitis B which was "probably transmitted" through a blood transfusion.

However, the serious incident was not made public by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) until this week.

The delay in making the incident public has raised major questions, particularly in light of the blood scandal which engulfed the service in the 1990s, leading to the infection of more than 1,000 mothers with hepatitis C.

"Just an isolated case". Move along now, nothing to see here.

recedite

Another old article here.

According to documents filed in the Companies Office, there are ``related party transactions'' between the firms Accu-Science, Intrascience and Mr Kinsella's other company Intraveno Ltd. (It has also emerged that the BTSB's former national director, Dr Jack O'Riordan, had what John Trainor SC suggested was an ``unusual'' relationship with another BTSB supplier, the multinational pharmaceutical company, Travenol)

Though SeHanratty admitted he was a director of Accu-Science, a company which supplied blood products to the BTSB, his name does not appear on company records, although one of its early directors is named as James Hanratty, who is described as a farmer from Roscommon.

SeHanratty has become a central figure in the Lindsay tribunal because of this apparent conflict of interest, and also because, as technical director of the BTSB, it was on his instructions that all records of blood products received and issued prior to 1986 were shredded and disposed of in 1993'

oscarBravo

I'm aware that IBTS, and more so BTSB, has had some questionable incidents (although I think you're adding two and two and coming up with 25 in a very conspiracy-theory-esque way). That doesn't stop me (and thousands of others) donating blood whenever I can, and it certainly wouldn't prompt me to decide that I'd rather bleed out during an operation than face the rather poorly-defined risks involved in a transfusion.

That's a decision for everyone to make for themselves, of course.

silverharp

I think their biggest hazard of belief is thinking anyone who had a Big Mac in London in 94 is carrying mad cow disease.

seamus

Certainly if it was a choice between a surgeon jumping the gun and providing a transfusion a little bit before it was necessary, or being allowed to die on the table because I'd explicitly said I didn't want a transfusion, I know which option I'd choose, every time.

There's an incredible amount of "look at how many people die on the table" scaremongering flying around. Virtually all of it ignores the fact that the people who die on the table probably would have died several years earlier had it not been for medical intervention.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

There's an incredible amount of "look at how many people die on the table" scaremongering flying around.

Are you aware that several hundred people in Ireland have died as a result of receiving contaminated blood? Not on the operating table, but at home, slowly over a number of years from Hepatitis and AIDs.
And as for "conspiracy theories" I'll let the facts as outlined in the links I posted speak for themselves.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Are you aware that several hundred people in Ireland have died as a result of receiving contaminated blood? Not on the operating table, but at home, slowly over a number of years from Hepatitis and AIDs.

Yes, and hundreds of thousands have received blood transfusions and gone on to live healthy lives.

And as for "conspiracy theories" I'll let the facts as outlined in the links I posted speak for themselves.

They do; they just don't say as much as you seem to think they do.

If what you've read, half-recalled, extrapolated and surmised makes you think that it would be safer to take the chance on bleeding out during an operation than to risk a transfusion, well, that's up to you. Just don't fool yourself that it's a rational decision.