I think the Labor party was in power at the end of 2007 when it was given the go ahead.

Yes it was presented in 07, started just before 08 elections but only fully rolled out in 2011. Regardless of any of this the whole thing seems odd and full of holes not to mention dangerous health wise.

As far as I am concerned no one except medical doctors should say how a patient is treated. All parties need to keep their noses out. As for the JW aspect, the mind does boggle.

---

@katymatey* wrote:

I think the Labor party was in power at the end of 2007 when it was given the go ahead.

---

It's irrelevant  which party was in power at the time. This wasn't intended to be a political propaganda  thread. Nor did I intend it to be a denigration of Jehovah's Witnesses .I'm just gobsmacked that it could have happened. To pay those two men to formulate this programme is akin a paying two fundamentalist Christians from the Southern Bible Belt of the US to write a sex education syllabus for Government funded schools.

If those two were true to their own beliefs they wouldn't take the job in the first place.  odd.

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

If those two were true to their own beliefs they wouldn't take the job in the first place.  odd.

---

LL the whole point of the programme was to "rationalise" the use of blood transfusions. Apparently there are drugs you can sometimes use instead (though the side effects can occasionally be lethal) and one or both of the men confirmed they had accepted travel and/or lecture fees from the drug compnies concerned.

I wonder who makes the product. i guess using it instead by passes the usual JW concerns

---

@katymatey* wrote:

I think the Labor party was in power at the end of 2007 when it was given the go ahead.

---

hahahaha, think the OP over-looked that bit, just slightly, lmao