Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Scientists Revive Dead Dog

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Yes, and the dog in the picture looks so happy. "Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage". Woof. How can they tell the difference between a brain damaged dog and a regular one?

Seriously, the article has a loopy idea about "scientifically dead" which we've known is wrong for years, ever since they've been transplanting hearts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When brain functions stop and there is no blood in the body, I'd say it's a pretty good assumption that he's dead. Who cares if the dog looks happy or not? It's an amazing scientific advancement, and I'm sure they have ways of telling whether or not the dog is brain-damaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This to me is a really interesting development in that I never before considered that something even remotely like this was possible. Think of what this could possibly mean, maybe surgery where blood loss isn't an issue.

I also wonder about things like cancer. If the blood flow was stopped I would think that the cancer would be dead. But then again I would think the patient would be dead too. I hope to hear more on this subject very soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This also would have direct implications in treatmant of not only things like gunshot trauma but cancer and other things which require transfusion. Given the number of people who can't receive transfusions based on religious objections, this could be very helpful. Plus, so much of cancer treatment is getting the work done before the patient dies. I could see putting the patient "down" for a while and allowing the treatment to do it's thing would really work.

Plus on another note the treatment of people with heroin and other oppiate addictions where they basically put them into a coma for a while and replace recycle all their blood so they don't have to be fully concious while they go through the worst part of their physical withdrawls. It makes it easier for the doctors to then deal with the mental part of the addiction.

But still, this stuff is still so really really early stages. Hopefully it won't be on that list of promising ideas that never quite worked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the proceedure requires all of the blood in the body to be replaced, I think the religous nuts will still object.

Surprisingly no. Completely artificial blood products don't seem to bother most of the Jehova's Witness's we've come across. I can't remember the exact quote from the bible but it specifically addresses another man's blood. So something that is most definately NOT blood but could replace it, at least temporarily, and have the origianl owners blood put back in or at least put slowly allowed to replace the artificial stuff should be ok.

I think Chinese culture also has some issues about blood transfusions but I can't remember. It's just a friend that works in oncology and my fiance that has done some legal work for people regarding medical directives as a lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Given the number of people who can't receive transfusions based on religious objections, this could be very helpful."

Actually, there aren't that many, at least here in the West. I think that Seventh-Day Adventists and a few other fringe groups have an objection to transfusions, but they're a tiny percentage (of Christians, at least---I'm not sure if Hinduism or other Eastern religions have similar groups with this aversion to blood transfusions).

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Muslims and some kinds of Orthodox Jews have similar problems. Mennonites? The Amish?

Anyway, a procedure with some surface similarity to this is already used for premature babies; their blood is routed through an artificial pumping device to let their heart rest for a while. I donated blood for a study on potassium levels in blood for just such operations, so I know. :thumbsup:

Dialysis machines also filter blood outside the body, so removing blood, doing something with it, and putting it back is not a new procedure. The stasis part I haven't heard of before, though, and it sounds very promising. The issue that I'm most interested in is: how long and how much effort does it take to perform said procedure?

Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC Muslims and some kinds of Orthodox Jews have similar problems.  Mennonites?  The Amish?

If I remember correctly it was something along the lines that you can take it out but it has to go back in completely since your body has to be buried hole. So even after autopsy they have to put the organs back in before burial and cremation is most defiantly not an option.

Chinese people can have blood removed but is has to be put back in so I know that one of the reason that HIV spreads so quickly is that the military, oops, private groups that run blood donations hook people up to a big pool literally. They take your blood, spin out whatever pieces they can out, put it back into the pool, and then pump it back into you. There is no individual donation. Needless to say, all it takes is one person to have HIV and quite literally everyone in the village will have HIV.

Feel free to correct errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...