I hope I conjugated my Latin right. Anyway, I know I'm not the author this time around, but I think we may have encountered technical difficulties. The ethics of our case didn't necessarily focus on the ethics of blood substitutes per se, but rather the ethics in which they are being presented to the public, which raises an eyebrow or two. Tests and commentary on the reliability of the products being manufactured are scant or entirely nonexistent, meaning we are dealing with a contingent product that could mean the difference between the life and death of a noncommunicative, rational actor. We agreed if the victim, patient, or otherwise rational actor or custodian of said actor can communicate the will of the victim by sign or contract, it's a different story entirely, but otherwise it would be unjust to deviate from the ordinary realm of treatment to a contingent product without other specification.