Do we have enough blood in our hospitals?

[night86mare]

So you are saying that it is hospital policy to deny this woman of blood just because she has reached a quota? :bigeyes:

I have already said my piece, am not going to continue this because frankly, quoting selectively instead of reading everything I have written simply to satisfy your justification of your view of the incident, i.e. using someone who disagrees with your view as a punching bag, I am not born to do that, as my mother would tell you.

Out of here.

Read what I said again, along with the scenarios and reasoning. Will not post here anymore, so you can quote and make merry with whatever I have written, I do not care. So long as one person thinks a little of what I have said, in my view my work is done here. Cheers!

 

[wazzup]

I could easily throw a question in return to you.

IMAGINE that your family is involved in an accident, the wife and kids need blood transfusions. Then the hospital administrator comes up to you, your nerves are raw, you are weary and you wished you never got up this morning.

"Hi, Mr XXX, we are sorry, your wife and kids are dead because our supplies are short, we had given out a lot of blood to XXX and XXX because they came first, and even though they used up a lot of our blood, we continued giving it to them at the risk of shortage because we wanted to save a life NOW, doesn't matter whether anything happens next."

Try doing it! :sweat:

At least they tried their best. Didn't they? Who am I to point fingers at them and say they didn't do their best? Even if I did, would the media and world stand by me or at the side of the doctors who did their best?

I hope you see my point, I do not DISAGREE that the family has a right to feel pissed, nor do any of you who feel pissed. But at least be fair and think it through. Look at the big picture. Can you predict what's going to happen next? Hospitals have a duty to the public, not any particular family. If the latter was the case, I would be very worried indeed, end of story.

Yeah, but the whole idea was the question of - did the hospital perform their duties to the public adequately in this case?

Again, I quote this...

Reported in the TV news, a pregnant woman who went for delivery in the hospital died because the blood bank refused to perform blood transfusion for her as she had hit her "quota". Before the doctor could give her more blood, her relatives needed to "top up" at the blood bank.

 

[leejay]

nightmare bro, you are missing the point.

Ask yourself: if you were one of the staff in the blood bank at that time, how would you have acted?

If I were him/her, I would quickly let them in and rush to report to the specialist about emergency. If the specialist still say "law-by-law, we open at 8.30am", then it is utter disappointment in the name of medical ethics. Didn't the docs and nurses study medical ethics?

Your points are valid, but they don't relate to this case. This case is all about administrative flexibility, in the face of medical emergency. Just think on this track: is it wrong to open the blood bank a bit earlier and mobilize the blood bank staff to save a life?

 

[wazzup]

I know I'm gonna kena slam but I agree with night86mare on this.
Doctors are professionals and we should trust them to do their job. If the doctors (I believe there should be more than 1 doctor who made the decision to let the patient go) decide that the situation is uncontrollable, ie. you can keep on pumping blood in but it will just gush out again. Doctors are not God, there is a limit to what they can do.
We all sympathise with the unfortunate woman's family, especially with her newborns, who just lost their mother, but it's too easy to jump to conclusions and blame the blood bank or the doctors, without knowing the full facts.

Yes... but in this case, they failed to do their job by refusing the blood transfusion not because they lacked the blood, but because of a 'quota'. If the deceased was beyond help, the effort to keep trying would have been appreciated and lauded commendable infront of others and the deceased's family.

The point is ... - the decease was still alive and refused the blood transfusion.

Have you watched Grey's Anatomy?

An attending asked O'malley to keep working according to rescue protocol. And he asked why - the patient is confirmed dead anyway.

The reason was that when you face the bereaved family, you can tell them "Sorry but I did my best" and that would be the best comfort you can relay to the family.


Can the hospital staff and HSA say they did their best?

 

[centuryegg]

No, but the root of the problem lies with the shortage of blood and blood quotas is it not?

You cannot say that it can be entirely disengaged from the whole thing. From my view; enough blood --> no blood quotas --> everyone happy --> red tape issue would have never existed in the first place.

I am immensely displeased with the attitude the people take with regards to the people at HSA. What do each of you work as? There are situations where emergencies apply, are you expected to be at whoever's beck and call - would you want to? Once again, big picture must apply.

Make the blood bank a 24 hour operation? How many people you know want to work in the blood bank? They have to use volunteers some times for blood donation drives. I would be more concerned if the blood bank workers were slave-driven; there are issues such as ensuring that the whole blood bank supply does not get contaminated; as inane as it sounds there have been cases in other countries, not sure if it happens here why HIV-infected monkeys try to play a fool and donate blood. There are AIDS victims who got stuff through HIV-infected blood transfusions, ironic indeed, to be saved yet doomed for life. Not just AIDS of course, still have so many other diseases which can be transmitted through blood, just varying degrees to which they threaten life.

No one is asking HSA to be at one's beck and call. We are talking about this one case and nothing else so please dont divert from the case. In this situation, it is a clear emergency and extraordinary measures have been taken on the part of the husband. Can not extraordinary measures be taken too rather then always quoting the "bigger picture". Could not a phone call be made to an superior that this guy's wife has 200 relatives now at the blood bank willing to donate blood and could someone make a decision? Or is the breakfast time of HSA's staff more important?

Has it become a "sorry my staff only come to work exactly at 9am, before that their time cannot be disturbed? My superiors? Yes we have their mobile numbers but they only start work at 9am sharp, we cannot call them for such matters before that. They cannot be disturbed as they are sleeping, eating breakfast etc"

If HSA is a postal service, a shopping centre, a resturant, fine by all means keep to your rules and regulations. Cos lives wont be lost and no one will die if you dont make exceptions to rules. In this case a life is lost and we are asking for accountability instead of saying "Let's think of the big picture and sweep the matter under the door"

And finally Can I then ask you then are you working at HSA as to argue on their behalf? If you are not working there then you are actually as clueless as us to what is happening and giving a lot of arguements based on the "bigger picture" which I assume is just your assumptions...

 

[wazzup]

nightmare bro, you are missing the point.

Ask yourself: if you were one of the staff in the blood bank at that time, how would you have acted?

If I were him/her, I would quickly let them in and rush to report to the specialist about emergency. If the specialist still say "law-by-law, we open at 8.30am", then it is utter disappointment in the name of medical ethics. Didn't the docs and nurses study medical ethics?

Your points are valid, but they don't relate to this case. This case is all about administrative flexibility, in the face of medical emergency. Just think on this track: is it wrong to open the blood bank a bit earlier and mobilize the blood bank staff to save a life?

Bingo. Ditto that.

 

[arpinkor]

Yes... but in this case, they failed to do their job by refusing the blood transfusion not because they lacked the blood, but because of a 'quota'. If the deceased was beyond help, the effort to keep trying would have been appreciated and lauded commendable infront of others and the deceased's family.

The point is ... - the decease was still alive and refused the blood transfusion.

Well, I dunno whether the people in this thread are doctors, but I'm not, but let's step back for a moment and think whether more blood will save the poor woman. We don't know how much blood exactly was transfused in this case, ie. what the quota was and whether it could be higher, but let's imagine you are the director of the hospital or the blood bank, would you allow unlimited blood usage for one patient, knowing that there may be other patients who need blood and will have a higher chance of surviving ? It's a cruel world, yes, but decisions have to be made to favour the majority.

 

[wazzup]

Well, I dunno whether the people in this thread are doctors, but I'm not, but let's step back for a moment and think whether more blood will save the poor woman. We don't know how much blood exactly was transfused in this case, ie. what the quota was and whether it could be higher, but let's imagine you are the director of the hospital or the blood bank, would you allow unlimited blood usage for one patient, knowing that there may be other patients who need blood and will have a higher chance of surviving ? It's a cruel world, yes, but decisions have to be made to favour the majority.

I'm not.. I'm just a cleaner in my office...

Let's put it the same way.. If you are a doctor, & the chances of saving the deceased is unknown. More blood might or might not save the deceased. Would you go ahead and try to save the decease, or just let it be, taking the worst case scenario?

Is the decease not a patient like any other? Are doctors supposed to prioritise who to save by choosing the worst scenario? If that's the case, no need to save, every operation has uncertainties, even a simple operation like appendectomy also has it's risks. So the docs should just say "hey, there's a risk invovled here, let's not operate and waste resources."

 

[zcf]

Just wonder is the hospital stuff flexible enough to let the patient to have blood donated, while the husband relatives here replenish the blood bank later? Or they really totally running out of that blood type.

Although Blood donated do have shelf life (3 months?) and different blood types, but they should use up the short expiry one first to prevent the blood from being wasted. So this shouldbn't be an issue?

 

[arpinkor]

All we know about this case is only from that TV news report, based on an interview with the dead woman's husband. Understandably, he's upset with the authorities. We are led to believe that the poor woman would have lived if there was no quota or if they were allowed in before opening hours (I do agree there should be some flexibility for emergency cases here) but we didn't see any interview with the doctors to hear their side of the story. The death cert stated the reason was some cardio failure or something (didn't see clearly) but it wasn't shortage of blood. If there is an inquiry into this, the doctor who stated that reason will have to stand by what he stated.

 

[dkw]

It is pretty amusing to see all these discussions in a vacuum of knowledge and understanding. All we have to go on are a few news reports, based on angry relatives versions of events. In almost all cases of this nature, when the true sequence of events come to light, it is almost always much less inflammatory than what is originally perceived. Yes, a young mother's life was lost, it is a tragedy. In a perfect world, where there are no limits on resources, this probably would not have happened. The truth is that the surgeon at the table will always try his best for his patient, it may not be up to him if the blood bank runs critically low and is unable to release what he requires. So don't confuse the 2, the hospital is the provider of care and the central blood bank is at the HSA, as it needs to be, being the custodian of a valuable resource for all Singaporeans. Being custodians, they sometimes have the unpalatable task of making some really difficult decisions.

 

[dkw]

Yes... but in this case, they failed to do their job by refusing the blood transfusion not because they lacked the blood, but because of a 'quota'. If the deceased was beyond help, the effort to keep trying would have been appreciated and lauded commendable infront of others and the deceased's family.

The point is ... - the decease was still alive and refused the blood transfusion.

Have you watched Grey's Anatomy?

An attending asked O'malley to keep working according to rescue protocol. And he asked why - the patient is confirmed dead anyway.

The reason was that when you face the bereaved family, you can tell them "Sorry but I did my best" and that would be the best comfort you can relay to the family.


Can the hospital staff and HSA say they did their best?

Do you really have any inside knowledge of the true sequence of events or basing your opinion on a possibly half-baked news report?

 

[dominator]

So many talks...

Just save whoever is in the Q 1st.

Why waste the 1st few packets of blood if there is a quota?
If the 1st packet is given, they should be prepared to give more.

 

[wazzup]

Do you really have any inside knowledge of the true sequence of events or basing your opinion on a possibly half-baked news report?

Do you?

 

[AhSeng]

Blood not enough? Hire a dracula...

Jokes aside, The only advise for you if you don't want a shortage of blood to happen to you or your relatives is to get them to be regular blood donors. You'll have a higher priority to blood products in these emergency cases.

In this case, it is not known what is the real cause of the patients death. We are here speculating that her death is caused by lack of blood claimed a non medical practitioner(her hubby) when it is not yet known if thats true to public at this point. The hubby might be trying to make a sensation news that the blood bank does not release enough blood for some sympathy. Anyone still remember the Huang Na case? Look at how much money her mum got from the sensation.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

wah u guys like super hot blooded... hahaha...

btw, how come u guys so into the quota word? iirc, maybe its misterpreted word of quota... perhaps... just my pure guess...

There is a certain limit a person can take blood transfusion, perhaps the doc just tell the husband she had 'hit her limits' instead he used 'quota'... if she takes in more donated blood packs, she might die of other complications.

and well, there is multiple side of the story... still... how is the kid?

 

[denniskee]

All we know about this case is only from that TV news report, based on an interview with the dead woman's husband. Understandably, he's upset with the authorities. We are led to believe that the poor woman would have lived if there was no quota or if they were allowed in before opening hours (I do agree there should be some flexibility for emergency cases here) but we didn't see any interview with the doctors to hear their side of the story. The death cert stated the reason was some cardio failure or something (didn't see clearly) but it wasn't shortage of blood. If there is an inquiry into this, the doctor who stated that reason will have to stand by what he stated.

me not doctor, but dont i think it is logical to assume that when a person loses too much blood, cardio failure will result.

anyway, the poor man did appreciate the doctors help. although he is in very sad, but he is clear minded. he is questioning the system.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

me not doctor, but dont i think it is logical to assume that when a person loses too much blood, cardio failure will result.

anyway, the poor man did appreciate the doctors help. although he is in very sad, but he is clear minded. he is questioning the system.

its logical, look at it this way...

lose blood, BP drop, heart pump faster to compensate, then until limit, heart failure.

well, just 1 guess.

anyway, RIP... everybody just move on... its a sad day...

 

[arpinkor]

... still... how is the kid?

kids, you mean ? She had two (龙凤&#32974.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

kids, you mean ? She had two (龙凤&#32974.

din know... hope they are fine...