British troops may have received contaminated blood

i dont think it says what the blood might be contaminated with ut wikinews says "Eighteen troops who fought and were wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq are being tested for HIV as well as Chagas, Hepatitis B, HTLV and Syphilis." ...... thats a nice list of illness's. but it just says tested thy dont know if theres actually anything wrong with this blood

its just the fact that the US dont know whether they've messed up or not
 
it says in the article the donners have since been tested and come back clear, so is it just me or is this a complete none event thats already been sorted
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Quite disappointed that the Times have jumped into the scaremongering wagon..
Click to expand...

The fact is that it is scary that these blood transfusions could have gone ahead without the proper screening. Imagine if you'd just been told you need an AIDS test, what would be going through your mind?
 
scorza said:
The fact is that it is scary that these blood transfusions could have gone ahead without the proper screening. Imagine if you'd just been told you need an AIDS test, what would be going through your mind?
Click to expand...

They were emergency transfusions and they may have died without them. Its nice to have a mind to have things going through.
 
Stolly said:
What part of "emergency" makes you think they had the time to do that ?

Better to try pumping certified clean blood into a corpse right ?
Click to expand...

:confused: They didn't pump the blood directly out of the donor into the patient you know. The blood was given some time ago and should have been screened before being released for use. If there was a problem with this blood then some other stocks would have been used. This is a case of procedures not being followed correctly, not a House-style medical ethics drama.
 
I know that in an emergency if my life was in immediate danger I would rather take the chance of the blood donor having something, than dying of blood loss.

If it happened in a hospital there wouldn't be much excuse for it, but if it's "in the field" and there are no other (checked) blood supplies near enough to be used then it's a different matter (even if the donors had checked out clean a couple of weeks prior it's no guarantee they would have been on the day, which is why normal blood donations are checked every time prior to distribution).
 
scorza said:
:confused: They didn't pump the blood directly out of the donor into the patient you know. The blood was given some time ago and should have been screened before being released for use. If there was a problem with this blood then some other stocks would have been used. This is a case of procedures not being followed correctly, not a House-style medical ethics drama.
Click to expand...

I understand that the blood was taken from other soldiers some days before it was used presumably in the knowledge that stocks were low, and that there was not time or even the means to check it normally.

Unless you have information to the contrary ?
 
that would make sense Stolly, iirc it takes several days (minimum) for a lot of the tests done on blood products, and that is in a hospital with the right lab to do the job.
 
Stolly said:
I understand that the blood was taken from other soldiers some days before it was used presumably in the knowledge that stocks were low, and that there was not time or even the means to check it normally.

Unless you have information to the contrary ?
Click to expand...

i didnt realises it said where the blood came from i assumed it was from the mass blood drive happening in america
although come to think of it other soldiers/civilians working with the forces makes more sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom