U.S. May Have Given Injured British Forces Infected Blood Transfusions

[Hissyspit]

Source: Times UK

US may have given injured British forces infected blood transfusions
Michael Evans, Defence Editor

The medical records of hundreds of British servicemen seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 have had to be investigated by the Ministry of Defence after the Americans admitted that they may have given some of the injured infected blood transfusions.

The Pentagon revealed at a meeting in Washington in early November that, according to its records, 11 British servicemen had received life-saving blood transfusions from American volunteer donors at US military centres in Iraq and Afghanistan over the six-year period. None of the donors had been pre-screened to detect for any sign of HIV, hepatitis C, syphilis or other blood diseases.

However, MoD officials discovered that the US military medical record-keeping was “so poor”, according to one source, that Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, ordered an immediate search of British records to check whether the Americans had treated other wounded servicemen.

- snip -

Although British officials could barely suppress their anger and frustration over the delay by the Americans in informing them of the potential medical crisis, it was acknowledged that the fresh blood provided by the volunteer donors almost certainly saved the lives of the 24 Britons.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168522.ece

[TroglodyteScholar]

1. "Sorry guys...

...hope there's no bad blood."

-USA

[babylonsister]

2. Damn. That's one big boo-boo. How could they be so negligent? nt

[aquart]

3. A. It's the military. B. It's the Bush administration.

That pretty much covers it.

[uppityperson]

4. k&r for supporting the troops. Oh, British troops. Still.

[jordi_fanclub]

7. Problem it's NOT "only" the British: it's ALL wounded... including US troops!!! (n/t)

[uppityperson]

9. I know, it was sarcasm. I missed putting in the sarcasm icon.

sorry.

[Duer 157099]

5. Jesus Christ, the way that's written it sounds like they're saying

"Hey, we saved your LIFE with that blood!! Beggars can't be choosers!!"

Um, yeah. However, the point is HOW FUCKING LONG it took to tell anybody about it -- like oh let's see, maybe it could affect the spouses, children of these guys, maybe?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[LiberalFighter]

6. Some facts:

None of the donors had been pre-screened to detect for any sign of HIV, hepatitis C, syphilis or other blood diseases.

There were seven more who had received on-the-spot blood donations from American military personnel, giving a total of 18.

The Pentagon said the American donors who provided the blood had now tested negative for hepatitis and HIV.

What angered the MoD, however, was that under British procedures, even the emergency blood donors have to be prescreened for contamination.

“When there’s an emergency, donors are called for from a panel of servicemen who have been checked. But the US doesn’t do this, they do the checking after the blood has been donated,” one official said.

They don't pre-screen? They trust that the troops will have safe blood? Many of those troops consist of National Guard week-enders? Or at least they were week-enders before Bush became President. No disrespect to the National Guards but the military were dragging the bottom of the barrel and likely to have members that did not lead the pure life. Especially, the longer they were working in civilian life.

Do they do blood work on enlisted and when they have their annual physicals? I suppose they don't do that with the National Guards.

[truthisfreedom]

8. When is someone going to investigate and find out what kind of blood OUR troops have been given?

Surely more than 24 of our troops may have received tainted blood.

[Solly Mack]

10. Damn

[LynnTheDem]

11. NOT SCREENED for HIV????!!!!!

Good fucking grief!

Dear world; America is a low-class 3rd world nation; BEWARE.

Fucking unreal.