Jumping the gun, glad it is world wide

At first I thought it was just our North American newspapers these days that report quickly and then ask questions later to get the truth. How when a major catastrophy hits (tsunami or the 9/11 attacks) the body count always seems to be much higher than it ends up to be when the bodies are finally counted, or in the case of attacks when someone is attacked by either gun, knife or fist the papers report a horrible beating and senseless attack but then when the dust settles there is always a reason or truth behind what was first thought. I mentioned this long ago with the Conley beatings on Edmonton Public Transit.

http://captcanuck.blogspot.com/2007/05/conley-bus-manslaughter-dropped.html

Basically, that long story short was bunch of teens allegedly attacked and beat a poor defenseless man to death on a bus. At prelim inquiry it was decided that the boys really didn't attack out of malice but were defending themselves as the man attacked them. They were cleared of all charges.

I guess the main point in this case is that once the news gives a human interest story, people quickly jump to arms. Man is beaten on a bus, we the citizens are getting tired of these beatings and are so quick to assume that the evil teens (the ones we read about so much) are the cause of the beatings and we dont care to listen to facts til they are printed. We hear about a tsunami tragedy and the body count is in the thousands, like 8,000-10,000 people dead, we instantly flood the help donation boxes with money to help these people and then wonder why a couple months later the body count has dropped down to 4,000 and wonder where our money went. It looks like it also happened again over seas.

One of the blogs I read on a regular basis (http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/) posted this clip:



and while it is all in chinese, I got the general feel from comments and his mentionings that the people were lining up to help, there was a shortage of blood and it all seemed to be delegated on a quota basis. You get a certain quota, you go over that quota and you have to find your own source or else you are screwed. However, recent articles are now poping up about this case.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/287449/1/.html

Quick and the short, woman goes into labour, suffers from medical emergency, massive bleeding happens, C-section was ordered, became a bleeding emergency and emergency bleeding blood transfusions were ordered. Family members were asked to come in to donate, which they did the morning but however the woman had passed away in the night due to "..DIVC, an acute blood coagulation problem." However "The Bloodbank@HSA said blood is provided to all patients at all times, based on clinical needs. And all bleeding emergencies are given first priority."

So now I get the feeling that the first mentioning of this happening was the clip and people were whipped to a frenzy, then this article comes out and sort of smooths away a few matters saying that blood is not withheld, just takes some time to get through channels. Then, comes another article.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/287574/1/.html

In this one, it is flat out said she was not denied blood and not because there was insufficient blood at the hospital. Seems blood is readily available and while I personally don't think that it is a good practice of the blood bank to go up to a husband/father of a woman who is in an emergency life saving procedure and say "yeah, we are doing what we can, she has had to have a lot of blood transfusions and maybe you and family members would like to go down and donate", it is sound practice. I mean, what better way to get people to donate than to put the fear of losing a loved one in. If you stop a person on the street and say "hey, why dont you go in to the blood bank and donate" people might find time to do it 'later..when I have a moment', but put a loved one on the operating table and you got 200 relatives lining up to donate blood. Would be interested to know how many of that 200 people lining up to donate were regular blood donors, giving their maximum limit of blood once a month. I know, personally, I am in that boat. I have looked at donating blood myself but the 2 week future date has me sort of put off since my work schedule is screwed up and never know when I can do it, but put my mother on the operating table and I would walk out of work to go down to the hospital and get hooked up to a direct line to help her out. So, can't really fault them or point too many fingers, just wonder if they are like me or if all 200 are regular donors on a regular basis.

But this final article does give a firm stance. Nothing was wrong, all procedure was followed, it is a workable system, all are safe and secure, it was a common body failure that caused her untimely death and no fault of the doctors, hospital or system. All people talking seem to be making mischief, and this is the truth.

Very similiar to the Conley case. Canadians (even myself) were all set to believe that the teens were hooligans, evil ungrateful little twits that would slit your throat sooner than look at you. However, in the end, it was a court that decided that they were not to blame and gave us the facts and the truth. Just as the hospital reports and the bloodbank reports gave Singapore the truth about this unfortunate instance. In both cases, someone died, the people jumped the gun, the truth is out there.