"Stands to reason" medicine takes another hit
For many years some doctors refused to treat Jehovah's Witnesses on the ground that they refused blood transfusions, which doctors felt made some procedures too risky. Someone finally got around to testing the assumption that patients do better with transfusions than without.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That's interesting, because blood transfusions do seem like they would be helpful.
I see that the article is from The New Yorker. While I don't agree with a lot of the political assumptions in The New Yorker, a substantial proportion of the web articles I have downloaded for my e-reader have come from The New Yorker. [Which beats the old alternative of trekking to the library to read it.]
Post a Comment