(note to adrie: it's not about work this time)
I'm too lazy to put a link because NST will archive it after some time. So go to NST and search for "blood transfusion consent" and you'll be able to open it if it's still there.
Anyway, so it looks like the government is now introducing a consent form for patients receiving blood. Before I actually read the article, I thought, what a bloody ridiculous thing to do! So you have a close to fainting patient with a 3.6 Hb count, needing four pints of blood, and you go, "by the way, we need you to sign this consent form because we will not be responsible if you contract AIDS or Hepatitis or any diseases from the blood you will be receiving." Now i'm scared, because i think i have received more than 25 pints of blood and god knows how many bags of platelets while i was under treatment. Erk!
Being a patient who was treated using the government's medical facilities, i think to get patients to sign such forms may just spoil its image (the government's image lah...not the patients'!). I have received excellent care from the doctors, who try to do their best despite the not so state-of-the-art facilities. My perceived lack of confidence for the government medical care significantly shifted while I was being treated. Some people asked me, "eh..why didn't you get your treatment done at so-and-so private hospital ah?" I answered, "why? the only difference is that there is no Astro and that the test results come back slightly late if it's not an emergency. otherwise the doctors are just as good." And I'm sure a lot of other people who've experienced the government's medical services will agree with me.
So, I think it's a waste of efforts when the nation is feeling quite good about the medical services, and they suddenly come up with a consent form that looks like they're trying to deny any responsibility for blood transfusion related diseases. You know why? Because people will think, "ahh it must be because of that lady who died because she got AIDS from her blood transfusion and they don't want to be responsible for occurences like that anymore."
However, after reading the article, I understand that the consent is just like the consent i had to sign prior to having my radiotherapy, where they explained to me the side effects of radiation. The form said that the risks have been explained to me, and that I understand them, and will not sue the government if anything happens to me. At which point I asked, "well, do i have a choice?" and the lady smiled to me, and i gave in and signed the document.
I guess the blood transfusion thing will be just like that. I still think that the government should at least take full responsibility for all diseases that are known at the time of the blood transfusion. I'll sign that. And rather than getting people worried about the risks, why not invest in better testing equipment and better education for the lab technicians? And if they still end up with one patient contracting a disease, settle. It's a small price to pay for the nation's confidence.
Ok la. membebel and starting to Talk Like Power, so i better stop. My final question is, if i'm in a situation where I require 4 pints of blood transfused, do i sign just one form, or 4 forms? Coz penat la weh nak kena sign 4 forms...dah la tengah tak cukup oxygen from low blood count. Then they'll need to have another consent form to say that the government is not liable for deaths occuring from signing blood transfusion consents. heh.
Ciao!
