Dear Google
Dear Google and Karen Wickre,
I loved your story “We Get Letters (2)” about new parents finding information to help prevent a blood transfusion of their newborn, but it’s inaccurate that the blood transfusion would be “extremely dangerous,” as the parents report. Blood transfusions are generally *extremely safe*, and the “danger” is a myth medical professionals have to dispel all the time. It’d be great if you noted this in your entries.
From Nelson’s Pediatrics:
“a current estimate for risk of transfusion-associated HIV is 1/1 million donor exposures, with estimates ranging from 1/800,000 to 1/2 million donor exposures. Similarly, the risk of viral hepatitis C is 1/1 million donor exposures. Transfusion-associated cytomegalovirus can be nearly eliminated by transfusing leukocyte-reduced cellular blood products or by selecting blood from donors seronegative for antibody to cytomegalovirus.”
Sincerely,
Me.
One other thing they might want to add is that delayed cord clamping significantly reduces the incidence of anemia requiring transfusion in premature infants.
Might make collecting cord blood to store for later a little harder. The probability that they’ll really need that cord blood is pretty low, though.
What you say seems contrary to common sense, does it not? The concept of infusing one person’s blood with that of another — especially when dealing with a newborn…does not seem like something I would want to volunteer myself or my children for. Would you?
It is because of doctors like you that make it known as “the PRACTICE of medicine”.
“Blood transfusions are generally *extremely safe*”
“HA!”
Sure, let’s subject someone healthy to HIV just for fun! While the risk of receiving infected blood may be small, who in their right mind would want to buy that lottery ticket? Sounds like “ME” is just a sour grapes doctor who is pissy cuz his patients now have access to the stuff he was supposed to have learned in medical school, but apparently never did.
Doctors hate patients that Google. No surprise there. Get used to it, docs. Any patient who doesn’t simply doesn’t understand the severity of the situation.
Also, why did he have to add the word “generally” in front of the word “safe”. It sure doesn’t sound to me like he would want to be first in line for an unnecessary blood transfusion. I know I wouldn’t.
Bob and “Common Sense”:
I’m not saying that we should be rounding up people with normal blood counts and exposing them to other people’s blood; I’m merely saying that calling blood transfusions “extremely dangerous” is untrue. Everything in medicine is a risk-benefit calculation. *Everything*. If a person needs a blood transfusion (and I’m not saying this baby did), the risks from blood transfusion, in most, outweigh the benefits.
If you believe blood transfusions are “extremely dangerous,” then you should be much more frightened of work-related injuries, motorcycles, bicycles, firearms, drownings, and “electrical current,” as the odds from dying from these are much, much higher than the odds of getting HIV from a blood transfusion.
It’s common sense to me to give blood to a person who needs it. I’m not arguing in this specific case–I couldn’t, I don’t know the details–but if the risk of death or ischemia or brain or heart damage because there’s not enough oxygen to keep their body working is real, I’m recommending transfusion every time.
I actually much prefer a patient who has researched his or her condition on Google or another website, as long as the data is accurate. It’s much more challenging as a provider to educate someone about their condition starting from step one. I think you also make some pretty grandiose assumptions about other patients. If your experience has been with know-it-all doctors, for that I’m truly sorry, but I don’t know many that honestly think they know about everything in their field.
(Also, I’m not a doctor.)