Red Cross caught red-handed

Washington Times ^ | `1/13/01

[kattracks]

First came the disheartening news that the American Red Cross was slow to distribute relief funds to the families affected by the attacks of September 11. Then came the distressing news that the relief funds were being used for programs unrelated to September 11. Now, the most shocking news of all: America's No. 1 blood bank might destroy tens of thousands of pints of donated blood because of greed and mismanagement.

[ventana]

Well, aruanan and my pointy head, perhaps you would checkout backhoe's post #5 he has nicely included Wallaby's excellent research on the Blood business and if you see article number 4, it specifically discusses the Red Cross "from disaster relief to Blood." Liddy Dole was the head of the Red Cross from 1991 to 1999, she did nothing to reform it, as far as I can tell, nor did she do anything to establish the capacity for freezing blood that Bernadine Healy began to realize--due to the atrocity-- was needed. That kind of capacity for a volunteer organization would take a five year business plan and lots of fundraising. Suddenly Bernadine had a lot of cash she thought could be applied for a worthy cause. Perhaps her sentiment was right but the method of funding wasn't. My point was and is, Dole ran that outfit for almost ten years, you don't go from a brilliant organization to a mismanaged fiasco in under two years. Obviously we disagree. V's wife.

[NYCVirago]

A federally chartered and 120-year-old non-profit, the Red Cross collects about 6 million pints of blood each year and earns 60 percent of its revenue ($1.5 billion) by selling such blood byproducts as plasma and platelets for $225-plus per unit.

So, people donate blood to the Red Cross, and the Red Cross turns around and sells it? How is that right?

[NYCVirago]

That is a great post! I'm copying and pasting it to send to friends.

[ofMagog]

I see now that when confronted with the smoking gun in their grubby hands they say they are sorry.

Several years ago I was in a workshop for psychotherapists in Santa Fe. During a discussion of behavior one of the psychiatrists in the group said when he was young one's behaviour was pretty much based on "What will others think?" whereas now it is, "Well, it looked like a pretty good idea at the time." That has been the attitude of the Red Cross for many years.

[Bizhvywt]

Next time give the money to your local Christian church.

[SirLancelot]

Donating to a local church is a very good idea. I don't understand why people donate to national/international agencies when there are people in need in every city in the nation. Personally, I don't donate to ANY cause, cause I figure we all have problems, and I take care of mine, so others should take care of theirs, BUT, if I were to give, I know I'd find a local charity to give to, because it would help people in my area, and maybe, in a small way, improve the lives of everyone in my city. When it comes to national charities, the money tends to end up at the top of the food chain, and not at the bottom where it should go. Call me uncaring, I don't care, but I take care of my own before I start trying to save the planet. :)

[JIM O]

I do not disagree except this situation was a very special case and my thought process was "great the Red Cross is involved" I truly thought this was going to help these people. Mt typical donations go locally or to causes I am closely involved.