Protracted lawsuit against Stanford Blood Bank ends
Original post made on Jun 7, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 7, 2013, 8:41 AM
on Jun 7, 2013 at 11:40 am
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.
on Jun 7, 2013 at 6:36 pm
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.
on Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 am
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.