UK troops in blood disease checks

But they should be checked in case they have been given a dodgy batch. Also be aware of weasel words such as...

MoD said:
the troops could have died without receiving the blood.
I could have died when I crossed the road this morning but I didn't!
misterp said:

probably the last thing anyone would want to worry about if you we given blood.
Any other comments?

I had a friend who died some years ago as a result of contaminated blood transfusion of US origin. I am sure other friends have had their lives saved by transfusions.
i was under the impression that things were screened to check for things like this!

this is the sort of thing people should loose jobs over!
I have always believed that troops should be bloodtested anyway, particularly in the environment in which deployments are commonplace now. I've also believed that donations of blood should be made by troops while out of theatre to keep the bloodbanks stocked.
Having lived in the UK, I'm banned from giving blood here in Canada for life. After our big tainted blood scandal, anyone whoever ate a cornish pastie or other UK born meat, is assumed to be a carrier of mad cow...hubby has a great many chuckles with that, so I've heard it all.

Hope for your sakes your blood supply is safe.
For once I agree with the MOD. When a transfusion is needed, it is needed. Then is not the time to be fannying around wondering about the source of the blood and whether it's clean or not.

If there is contaminated blood in the US supply chain, then it is a problem for the US to sort out.

Incidentally, I am prevented from giving blood in the US because I've spent too long in Europe. Who's contaminated now?
Some while back I had to have 24 units, during a 11 hour period of emergency surgery, if I hadn't had the transfusion I would be dead :( .

My wife and I were talking about this very thing a week ago, I'll say the same thing I said to her when she asked if I ever worried about the blood being contaminated, I'm alive and my 3 children have a father, good enough for me. :D
The only comment I can make is that during my time in the army I was told by a doctor that the Policy was if blood was need to keep a casualty alive then in an emergency the Transfusion was given and the problems where treated after.
Just heard the man hackle himself on Five Live. Good interview - nice and balanced. From the sounds of it the risks are small - Pentagon is reporting that the US donors have tested clean since the transfusions, so it does appear that our lads are unlikely to have caught anything.
Troops are waiting in fear The Sun Front Page 10 Jan 08.

EIGHTEEN British soldiers were last night facing an agonising wait to see if they will contract a deadly disease through contaminated blood supplied by America. The gravely wounded men needed drastic transfusions after cheating death on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they fear they could yet be killed — by donated blood that was not properly screened and “certified” by US authorities. It could leave them vulnerable to potentially lethal infections such as HIV, hepatitis and syphilis.
According to the article they most certainly would have died had they not had the transfusuions. We shouldn't get too sniffy about the "US" blood, but more concerned that we cannot provide enough "British" blood.

NB. The use of "US" and "British" is a reference to the differing national standards of screening - not an extreme right wing view on the donor.
I seem to remember a story a few years back where haemophiliacs were in danger due to the lack of proper screening of Factor 8 (clotting agent) made from blood of US citizens.
Horridlittleman said:
But they should be checked in case they have been given a dodgy batch. Also be aware of weasel words such as...

MoD said:
the troops could have died without receiving the blood.
I could have died when I crossed the road this morning but I didn't!
Quite, but when your p!ssing blood out of a Gun shot / blast wound, it's a pretty good combat indicator that you not long for this earth. I dont know about US but UK donors are pre-screened.
An unfortunate episode in an otherwise excellent in-theatre medical system. The Yanks didn't do their checks properly; hopefully they've learnt their lesson. For once this is something we can't blame Des the Ch1mp for.
Whatever Journo has earned a small towns fortune for this pile of crock should be jailed! unlike British Troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, EVERY American Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Defence Contractor is TESTED prior to deployment for HiV, Hepatitus and any blood related disease, these tests are carried out in the pre-deployment Units from where the troops go straight onto planes deploying them, I know this as I worked for the State Department in 2006 in Iraq. Anyone failing any part of their rigorous medical checks are not deployed, guys were even being refused deployment due to variations in blood pressure, one of which was a Royal Navy Clearance Diver who was in his early 20's and only left the Navy a couple of weeks previously.

It is Highly unlikely blood taken from U.S. Soldiers would be contaminated with even the smallest infection. It is about time Britain tested every Military person deploying into potential combat operations.

Who leaked such a crap and ill informed story such as this? any journo reading this should get straight back onto Sky and the rest of the Arrse media places and bring to light the failure of our own medical tests rather than attacking a country that DOES test it's troops!


US emergency donors are screened before deployment and (IIRC) after giving blood (on return to US I believe)
These are only used when there is no alternative (other than allowing the wounded to die of injuries sustained) as they have run out of pre packed units of blood.

I beleive they run a similar system to us, those who have done the BDSS course will know what I'm trying (badly) to say.

New Posts

Latest Threads