Original post made
on Jun 7, 2013
This story contains 1076 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
If indeed "Before the 2008 incident, he had two prior complications of an unspecified nature at the blood bank in 2004 and 2006, according to court documents.", why in the world did Stanford encourage this guy to continue donating blood? In hindsight, this appears to be a disaster waiting to happen.
I've donated blood many times. However, I always bathe thoroughly before going to a blood bank, in part because bacteria is always present on skin, and in part because I would never rely 100% on a quick alcohol swab.
This man's infection was so severe that I wonder if he sought help in a timely manner.
I agree with the first part of Marty's comment; take all precautions any time you go into a hospital, and even more for any sort of invasive test.
As for the second comment, what constitutes a timely manner? Infections can often seem trivial at first. Some infections become very serious very fast. But suppose Bul, a man without health coverage, didn't zip into a doctor's office right away and shell out what might be a significant amount of money for him? He would not have been alone, in this richest country in the world, but one that does not offer health care to all its citizens. Please, let's be careful before we "blame the victim."
Futhermore, is there any excuse for Stanford's failure to maintain high safety standards? I don't think so. Is there any excuse for the way they hid information that they were ethically, if not legally, bound to release? That doesn't look good either. A hospital that does an incredible amount of good for its patients should also hold itself to a high standard on all fronts, including dealing with its own mistakes.
I'm glad that the case was finally settled, so that justice delayed was not completely justice denied.
I need someone to assist me. I am a Blood Donor. Have been since 1979. The last time I went to help the blood bank and someone who needs healthy blood; this is what happened:
First off it was Saurday; I never go on Saturday but felt it was a good day as any.
I work all week and usually go after work when they are open for blood donations.
As I was at the computer and started to answer the usual questions a woman came up to me ( I assume she was a vulonteer) and asked if I needed a hot towel (or something)for my hands. I was shocked and stunned. I have NEVER had anyone ask such a question. I brought this to the attention to the nurse that takes your vitals and after that (I had left)it went down hill fast.
I asked why all of a sudden I was presented with such question. Never got an answer. What I have gotten is ridiculous excuses, insults, emails that not only leaves you stunned but you ask the question; What is going on? All I wanted was an answer as to why all of a sudden I am being asked such a question when donating blood?
Will someone pls help me out. I do not deserve such insulting emails. I would like an answer and at this point an apology is much overdue.
As the spouse of a major blood donor with a rare type (who also does not have the virus mentioned), I am concerned when I read things like this. We have not experienced problems, but I would like to keep it that way and be aware. I am mainly looking for evidence that Stanford took responsibility, dealt with the complaint honestly and expeditiously, and improved their procedures as a result. At least there is no evidence of scorched earth tactics, and Stanford seems to have tried to take responsibility, but the article was murky and far from reassuring. I am not going to assume anything but would love to know more. Is there a more comprehensive response from Stanford (that clearly addresses these concerns?)