Posted on 04/13/2009 7:35:02 PM PDT by xzins
For years, the use of unscreened blood transfusions exposed severely wounded servicemembers and other trauma patients in Iraq and Afghanistan to the inherent risk of diseases such as HIV, hepatitis and malaria, according to medical experts who advise the secretary of defense.
Battlefield attacks that resulted in mass casualties or severe injuries often overtaxed the military’s blood supply system until 2007, meaning medics collected fresh blood from those on site for emergency treatment of the wounded, the Defense Health Board wrote in a June 2008 report.
The unscreened blood transfusions, however, did not meet federal safety standards required of all other military blood supplies.
It was used in a "significant" number of cases until the practice was curbed dramatically due to the board’s criticism and advances in the war zone blood supply about two years ago, according to the report and the military’s blood supplier, the Armed Services Blood Program.
Use of unscreened blood has dropped by about 80 percent since 2007, when facility upgrades and new high-tech storage facilities allowed the military to provide more federally regulated blood downrange, said Col. Francisco Rentas, director of the Armed Services Blood Program.
But the emergency transfusions meant "wounded servicemembers may survive the acute event only to suffer from potentially fatal or chronically debilitating transfusion-associated infectious diseases in the future," the Defense Health Board found.
Unscreened blood transfusions are still used in cases of severe trauma and mass casualties if no other option is available, officials said.
Incomplete picture
It is unclear exactly how many servicemembers, civilians and combatants have received the unscreened blood and how many subsequently contracted diseases.
Medical statistics paint an incomplete picture but indicate the transfusions occurred regularly in Iraq and Afghanistan and have resulted in at least a handful of recorded health issues.
The U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research tested 2,831 units of unscreened blood transfused in Iraq and Afghanistan between May 2003 and February 2006. Testing showed three units were tainted with hepatitis C and two were positive for human T-cell lymphotropic virus, which can later develop into untreatable, fatal leukemia and other debilitating diseases, the institute reported in a 2007 study.
None of the samples tested positive for hepatitis B or human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, the report said.
"No more than seven U.S. casualties have been exposed to [emergency unscreened blood] which was subsequently found to be reactive for viral markers," the U.S. Army Medical Command said in a statement to Stars and Stripes last week.
One of those cases became a hepatitis C infection, the Army said.
The transfusions also were used on Iraqi patients, other foreign civilians and coalition servicemembers.
The practice has the approval of the Department of Defense when no federally screened blood is available, but has never been encouraged. No formal guidelines for the transfusions have ever been created, the Defense Health Board found.
The vast majority of the military’s blood supply is collected, tested and supplied by the Armed Services Blood Program under the same U.S. Food and Drug Administration blood safety standards adhered to by the Red Cross and other civilian blood banks.
The emergency unscreened transfusions on the battlefield are used only when ASBP blood is unavailable.
Downrange storage limited
Blood donations have flowed into the ASBP from the United States since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began but the storage capacity can be limited downrange, said Maj. Toni Mattoch, deputy director of the ASBP from 2004 to 2007.
The military often overstocked blood, and it would often expire before it could be used, the Defense Health Board reported. Only 2 percent of the blood stocked in the first year of the Iraq war was used.
The report pointed out that sporadic large-scale attacks could quickly deplete locally stored blood supplies, driving up the need for the emergency transfusions.
Instant testing kits for HIV and hepatitis that are more than 90 percent accurate are now supplied in combat zones to provide safer emergency transfusions when necessary, Rentas said.
The mass casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been relatively small in terms of past wars involving America.
The walking blood supply is one of the important issues in any discussion of permitting open homosexuality in the military.
If homosexuality is openly permitted, then one can no more complain about a US homosexual shacking up with a local than you can complain about a US heterosexual shacking up with a local.
Homosexuals are shockingly promiscuous in their number of partners and in their lack of standards in selecting partners. Any HIV test given prior to deployment would be obsolete within weeks given that the infectiousness of HIV infection is evident mere weeks after infection.
In short, would you want your child given a transfusion during a mass casualty on a battlefield? Just as important, would you want your child denied a transfusion because of suspect blood in the unit? Would you want to be a part of a unit where your blood could save the lives of unit members, but some blood in that unit no one would want to get near? Would that enhance morale?
You do have a point there. Within the civilian population, blood donors are questioned about sexual activity and any male who has had sex with another male since 1977 (or is it ‘79?) is not allowed to donate blood.
Let me see if I understand this:
a soldier is bleeding out and they give him blood to save his life, which he is about to lose if he doesn’t get blood IMMEDIATELY.
But now they’re fussing because the blood given was unscreened and the soldier may develop an awful disease (rule out malaria as being awful. It is very treatable. I know.) at some unspecified time down the road and that disease while bad and may kill him may also be treatable.
Um, I’ll take door number one, please.
So, you want your child to be part of a unit where his choices are “die or get tainted blood which may kill you far sooner than the norm?”
It is a morale issue in the unit. Your blood can save Snuffy, but Snuffy’s will kill or debilitate you.
Why did I just have to take doxycycline for weeks when I recently was in Asia, if malaria is so cool?
I never said "malaria is cool." I said it is treatable. I have no clue why you took doxycycline as prophylaxis. It doesn't work for me. Plus, it does cause yeast infections which are also not cool.
I live in Sentani, Papua, Indonesia. I am 2.5 degrees below the equator. Malaria is endemic here. When I feel malarial, I run a slide down to the lab and check. If positive, I take the meds for that specific type of malaria and I'm better often within hours. I get malaria 2 - 4 times a year. I'd rather have it than a cold.
You’d rather risk his life down the road than insure the purity of the blood supply so that there is no risk?
That’s an odd position. I’d rather get rid of the risk.
The doxy was one of the recommended meds. It was also available from the pharmacies in my rural area.
Of course I’d rather get rid of the risk. That’s not what I’m saying.
I am saying, don’t condemn the medicoes for using the only available option if it will save a life, even if it risks complications later on.
Hubby takes doxy every day. He still gets malaria. I don’t use prophaxis. Our illness rates are about the same.
FWIW, larium, aka mefloquin, was one of the recommended malarial drugs. It is a very dangerous drug.
mefloquin was on the list, but not available in the time frame I had to depart. Doxy was on the shelf.
Good. Let’s agree to get rid of the risk and to make decisions about the walking blood supply that keep the risk as low as humanly possible.
Let’s also acknowledge that tainted blood in one’s unit will affect unit morale.
On that, we can agree.
Because your doctor is an idiot. Doxy is useless against malaria.
L
Why It Is Used
Doxycycline is used to prevent malaria:
In chloroquine-resistant areas (where chloroquine is no longer effective against the parasite) when you cannot take mefloquine (for example, because of side effects).
If you will be traveling in certain areas of Thailand.
How Well It Works
Doxycycline is effective in the prevention of malaria.
This isn't really a "regular" HA pingout. But xzins' comment is exactly to the point, and just one of the reasons homosexuals should not be admitted in the military (albeit a very important reason). Even "don't ask don't tell" isn't stringent enough. It should be "ask, and if it's the wrong answer, show them the door of the recruting center".
Homosexual Agenda Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Sincerely,
W. Mitt Romney
Some people stick their finger in the wind to help them make a decision.
Mr. Romney sticks his whole Mitt in the air to see where his tactical advantage lies.
No thank you.
It isn’t that easy a problem. Not all blood borne diseases have cures, herpes simplex for example.
My 68-year old mother had part of one lung removed due to cancer. She required blood transfusions, one of which was tainted with herpes simplex. Not cool.
I’m very sorry for the death of your mother. Nothing can mitigate the suffering she endured nor the sorrow you feel.
But, if the only blood available to save someone is unscreened AND the patient will die without the blood, I would take that risk. Die today or maybe die tomorrow? That is the choice given sometimes.
Please accept my condolences for what your family has experienced. I wish that the suffering had not happened.
********************
I had no idea that this was happening. Those who risk their lives for our country deserve far better; they deserve the very best of current medical practice.
In answer to your questions: No.
Thanks for posting this. I suspect that their are many like me who were completely unaware of this situation.
The walking blood supply is one of the important issues in any discussion of permitting open homosexuality in the military.
You are exactly right!
Additionally, there is NO REASON why the blood cannot be screened. The combined casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan do not even approach the casualties of single days in past wars. We have more than ample supplies of blood and the ability to screen it.
Male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious disease and emerging antibiotic resistant bacteria in the US. Next time you give blood ask yourself why all the questions about homosexual behavior. The deviants will soon have the right to infect any child of their choosing and the law will protect them from prosecution.
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.