Posted on 07/20/2008 6:30:19 AM PDT by neverdem
One thing Americans do not want to hear when they are injured or facing surgery is that blood from the American Red Cross may actually harm them. So it was unnerving, to put it mildly, to learn that the Red Cross, which collects and distributes some 43 percent of blood given to patients in this country, has failed to follow quality-control measures ordered by a federal court 15 years ago.
The organizations sloppy procedures and its lethargy in investigating possible harm have put untold numbers of Americans at risk. These failures have been identified in reports and investigations by the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the safety of the American blood supply, and summarized in The Times on Thursday by Stephanie Strom.
The F.D.A. found shortcomings in the way the Red Cross screens donors for possible exposure to infectious diseases, failures to swab arms properly before inserting needles, failures to test for syphilis and failures to discard potentially risky blood, among other deficiencies.
--snip--
There is little or no evidence that recipients of the blood have been harmed; the skimpy record doesnt allow an assessment. Regulators say the Red Cross no longer routinely releases unsuitable blood, as it did in the late-1980s and early-1990s. Blood supplied by the Red Cross is generally considered among the safest in the world, and the organization is praised for doing a good job of testing for the AIDS virus and hepatitis B, two of the most feared infections...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yes, I think it is a racist title! Especially since they end the piece with: “They need to get cracking.” ;-)
When I do apheresis every two or three weeks, I get swabbed like the deck of the USS Enterprise preparing for Presidential inspection. With a huge push for socialized medicine coming in the form of Obama's candidacy, there has to be something about the Red Cross's blood collection that bothers the central planners. (Maybe the deal made with the Klintoons is that they can resurrect their tainted prison blood scheme on a national level under a President Obama.)
'Black Marks for the Red Cross (Is this a racist title?)'I don't know about the Headline being racist but here's a little personal anecdote....The F.D.A. found shortcomings in the way the Red Cross screens donors for possible exposure to infectious diseases, .... among other deficiencies.
During surgery in 1969 I needed a blood transfusion. Then the oddest thing happened when I finally got out of the hospital.I threw away all my Beatles and Rolling Stones 'albums' and bought nothing but Motown. I even started singing Doo Wop and calling myself 'Smokey'.
oops, my bad
Too funny! When I went to Mexico for surgery, I needed a transfusion and joked with the nurse about whether my Spanish would improve - it didn’t!
The only positive experience I’ve ever had with the Red Cross was the “free” cookie & OJ after donating blood. The blood, of course, might eventually be sold back to me if I needed it.
Recommend “Bad Blood: Crisis in The American Red Cross” by Judith Reitman
Only if you allow the losers of society, the bottom of the gene pool, to define our language for you.
Personally, I refuse to play that game.
This is a classic example of Bullshit*.
Totally accurate, but also totally misleading. That statement does not in any way assert that damage has not been done, or that people have not died. Simply that there is no evidence of it.
Personally, that kind of bureaucratic tapdancing makes me nervous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.