LETTER : Saving money on blood transfusion
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr Colin Entwistle
Sir: If John Adey, the chief executive of the National Blood Authority (Letters, 14 October), is not proposing to close any blood centres, why did the NBA choose Option D from the alternatives set out by the consultants Bain & Co who were asked to look at the service? Option D states that "five or six centres could be closed". In September 1994, Mr Adey wrote to all Blood Transfusion Centre (BTS) directors denying that "we plan to close more centres in addition to those published", with the obvious implication. Mr Adey also wrote to the workforce representative at Brentwood and discussed "the proposed closure of Brentwood".
The proposals for reorganising the service came from eight working groups composed of a total of 44 blood service managers chosen from the 15 centres. Among these 44 managers, none came from Liverpool, Plymouth, Oxford or Lancaster and only two (on the "donors" committee) from Brentwood. By a curious coincidence the centres selected for downgrading amalgamation were Oxford, Liverpool, Plymouth, Brentwood and Lancaster; that selection being decided by a small inner strategy group only.
It is astonishing that Mr Adey now tries to argue that the aim of the proposals was not to save money.
Mr Adey claims that "donors have always indicated that the sale abroad of any surplus is preferable to the alternative, which is burning". A substantial minority of the few donors asked do not wish their blood to be sold even under these circumstances. I believe that all donors should be informed, prior to donation, of potential sales arising from their freely given blood so they have a chance to opt out. Informed consent is the basis of our voluntary system.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Entwistle
Oxford
17 October
The writer is the recently retired medical director of the Oxford Blood Transfusion Centre.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments