posted on December 28, 2002 05:00:14 AM
It's reports like this one that I find very troubling. Why in the world wouldn't these safety rules be enforced? A 10 year problem?
What reason could the Red Cross possibly have for not being more diligent in their job of protecting our blood supply?
Specifically, the FDA alleges that some Red Cross employees were instructed to skip required safety steps, and others altered records, to allow release of blood that had failed safety testing.
In addition, the Red Cross failed to screen out some people who were not supposed to give blood, the FDA said. It was unclear what happened to the units these people donated, the agency said.
More than 1,000 units of blood were unaccounted for, it said.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 28, 2002 05:02 AM ]
posted on December 28, 2002 06:14:56 AM
I went to donate after 9-11 and was rejected because I answered yes to a question about being in southern Mexico within the last 6 months...apparently there was risk of Dengue Fever or Malaria or St. Vitus' Dance or something.They told me I couldn't donate for another two years...(DARN!!)..what puzzles me is the whole "risky behaviors" questioning process..if you just say "no" to all the questions, your blood has made it past the first hurdle..if it is inadequately screened after that...kind of scary...
posted on December 28, 2002 11:07:26 AM
I wonder which is the more disturbing notion: that the red Cross is selling tainted blood for the profit of it; or the Republican's War against the FDA, trying to destroy the agency? Which one is it for you, Linda? For me, it would be the loss of the FDA.
posted on December 28, 2002 03:17:37 PMif you just say "no" to all the questions, your blood has made it past the first hurdle..if it is inadequately screened after that...kind of scary....
Agreed 100%. I remember thinking that same thing when I've donated blood.
When scheduling an elective surgery, one can donate two pints of their own blood. But when it's an emergency then it's 'keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best' apparently.
posted on December 28, 2002 10:35:12 PM
And yet people think Jehovah's Witnesses are a bunch of rubes for insisting they be given sterile expanders and other alternatives to whole blood instead of the swill mix of hepatitus and west nile virus that makes so much money for the hospital.
Used to live in Ohio as a kid and an old Mexican Witness guy in our neighborhood had six pints of some sort of salt water put in him instead blood over a couple days and lived through it just fine. His hemo count was so low they said he shouldn't be alive but he never lost consciousness and was OK although his family was crying and carrying on because they were all another religion. He was a neat old boy. Rode with the Federales against Pancho Villa and when a rifle bullet went through his leg and killed his horse that's when he got religion and decided he didn't want to be a soldier anymore!
I won't have anything to do with the Red Cross because of the way they treated my Dad when he was in the Army.
posted on December 29, 2002 11:47:57 AM
ARC is so corrupt, it's pitiful.
About four years ago, when I donated blood I found out that some people will go in to give blood in a way to get a free HIV test. Since it is confidential (vs a medical facility who can leak the info), people are confident that the community won't find out.
Since that time of donation, I have wondered how many transfusions are of tainted HIV blood.
[ edited by clarksville on Dec 29, 2002 11:58 AM ]
posted on December 29, 2002 12:50:48 PM
I will never donate anything to them. I heard so many stories from WW2 vets they make me sick. I only give to the salvation army.
