An Australian women came into a doctors office when she reported to have small lumps under her arms and in her chest under the skin for two weeks. When check out, they suspected the lumps to be inflamed lymph nodes which could be lymphoma, a type of cancer that affects the immune system. Stated by Dr. Christian Bryant (One of the hematologists that worked on her), "ninety nine times out of one hundred, (this) will be lymphoma." Doctors were shocked when they found the immune cells they suspected to be lymph nodes, were loaded with black ink used for tattooing. The woman had a few tattoos on her back and under her arms, and the ones acting up were 15 years old. Doctors are still baffled why it took so long for the immune cells to start clustering up because of the ink. The doctors say to do your homework when getting a tattoo and check the artists history and your immune system before letting the needle go beneath the skin.
Question 1. - Would you still get a tattoo now knowing that they can potentially be harmful for your immune system by confusing it with the ink?
Question 2. - What would you do if you were in the situation similar to this woman? Would you sue the tattoo company?
Answer 1. - I would still get a tattoo even if I knew the risks. I'm not planning on getting anything major like some people. I have seen people with tattoos all over their faces and bodies and it just doesn't appeal to me. I think tattoos are OK in moderation and if they express your interests. Also, the more tattoos you have, the more risk you are for an infection from the ink, especially if you go to multiple places to get it done.
Answer 2. - I feel like I would need more information before going to sue the company. Granted if it was 15 years ago, it would be extremely hard to get evidence to conclude if it was the parlors fault for not having clean tools or faulty ink. Maybe get more people investigated who had gone to the same parlor and see how their immune systems reacted to the ink. Or if it was just her bodies reaction to the ink and it had nothing to do with the parlor.
Article - http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/health/tattoo-ink-lymphoma-study/index.html ;
Replies
Good job overall but you could have replied more frequently.
I would still get a tattoo even knowing the risks because if you have a reputable parlor and know what you are doing and the parlor has a good reputation i believe the risk is fairly small. I also don't want anything major and feel that it is a good way to express your interests or can be a way to show how something is important to you.
No i feel it would be more work than it was worth and if you're not willing to do your research and find a decent parlor than you can't blame them for your inability to accept the consequences of your actions.
I would not get a tattoo if I knew it would be harmful. I wouldn't take that risk. I think that I would need to have more information because if it was a long time ago I don't think I would sue.
Yes, all you need to do is just do some background work and make sure that the artist is a well known and good artist. I wouldn't sue unless it was because of the artist and not my immune system then I will sue otherwise I wouldn't sue.
I personally am not interested in getting a tattoo. After reading this, I am REALLY not interested. If I were in her situation, I would be mad at the tattoo business and would sue them. People should check the credibility of the artists/their supplies/ink before getting something permanent that could possibly be damaging.
Definitely I would. Questions for her are: Was the place she went to clean? Did they wash their hands? Did they dispose the needles? Was this the cheapest place? She should have had done research on the tattoo shop she was going to. Cheapest isn't always the best. I wouldn't be mad at the company, nor I would sue them. It was her choice to get a tattoo, she should've thought more through.
I wasn't planning on getting a tattoo anyways but this only happened to one person so if you still wanted to get one, I think that it would be okay as long as you did your research first. I don't think that I would sue the company because this happened 15 years ago and there could have been other reasons why the ink got into the cells. It would also be hard to sue the company for something done 15 years ago with no real evidence.
Even with the risks involved, I would still get a tattoo, but I would go to a tattoo parlor with a good reputation, a well-lit, clean, and safe environment. (I actually plan on getting a tattoo for my next birthday, not that it matters.) If I were in the same situation as this woman, i probably wouldn't sue the tattoo company, because it happened 15 years go. But maybe it was just her body's reaction to the ink, as you said. Different people have different reactions to substances, after all.
Now knowing that tattoos can be potentially harmful to the immune system, I would definitely think twice about getting a tattoo. If I knew that tattoo place was very reliable and does everything they can be as safe as possible, I would be more likely to get a tattoo than I would be if the tattoo place was unreliable and unsanitary. If I were in a situation similar to this women, I would try to gather evidence before possibly suing the tattoo company. I would find out the company's policy on situations such as this before deciding what to do next.
That is correct. She should have a team go through and find old records on the tattoo parlor to make sure that they were and still are up to code. Maybe it was the ink, or the unsanitary tools. The digging through the companies records would surely bring out the truth on what happened with the ink or if it was indeed just the woman's body.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next