Re: The Red Cross gave me HIV/AIDS - for 30 minutes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zach) wrote:
>I originally intended to write an article on why people should donate
>blood - not any more. I'm sure a lof of people here do. That's fine,
>but I just wanted to give you a heads up.
>concatenated
>http://www.zacheverson.com/Op-Ed/Life/Red_Cross_HIV_AIDS.htm
> 
>The day the Red Cross gave me HIV/AIDS 
>My jobs haven't been that demanding, as you can probably guess by
>looking at this site. A few months ago,however, I was working on a big
>report and was stuck late at work. After 12 hours there (five more
>than usual), I spent 45 minutes waiting for a bus and another 30
>minutes on the bus. I didn't know it at the time, but that was the
>best part of my day.
> 
>It was about 10:30 p.m. when I finally crossed the threshold of my
>condo building. Tired, hungry, and cranky, I stopped at my mailbox and
>went through the usual assortment of bills, magazines, and
>have-you-seen-me postcards (no, so stop asking). There was also a fat
>envelope from the Red Cross. I'd given blood several times over the
>past few months; every time I did, the Red Cross sent me a thank you
>note, which made me angry. The Red Cross sells the blood it gets from
>donors to hospitals to fund its disaster relief programs. I am fine
>with having my blood pimped out — disaster relief is a worthy pursuit
>(unless it goes to some Californian who insists on building a home on
>an earthquake vault under a giant hill of mud). The Red Cross would
>have more money for it though if they stopped wasting it on thanking
>me.
> 
>The letter
>Instead of just throwing it away, as I'd done with other
>correspondence from the Red Cross, I opened it (ripping on their waste
>might make for a good article):
> 
>Dear Mr. Everson:
> 
>You recently donated blood or apheresis and we appreciate your support
>of our program. During that donation you were informed that several
>screening tests would be performed to determine the suitability of
>your blood for that donation. We perform these tests as part of our
>responsibility to ensure the safety of the blood supply. The test
>results may also be of importance to the health of our donors.
> 
>During the routine testing of your blood or apheresis donation, an
>abnormality was discovered. We have enclosed the results of all tests
>performed on your donation. A fact sheet is also enclosed which
>explains the meaning of the abnormal test result.
> 
>It went on for a few more paragraphs. I scanned them — boilerplate
>text.
> 
>I flipped to the next page.
> 
>"Blood Donation Screenings Tests Results." There was a two-column
>table. On the left was a list of the tests performed. On the right
>were the results. In the HIV section the results were POS, NA, NEG,
>NEG, NA, NEG, NEG.
> 
>POS.
> 
>(This line left intentionally blank to emphasize my shock when I saw
>that I tested positive for HIV.)
> 
>But what was the deal with the other test results — in addition to the
>one POS, there were two NAs and four NEGs? Did I have HIV? Did I not
>have it? Did one POS and a slew of NAs and NEGs mean it was at an
>early stage? Or did it mean the POS was wrong?
> 
>I flipped the page.
> 
>" Fact Sheet: Antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (anti-HIV)."
>The two-sided page was all text — about 500 words. I tried to read the
>page, but I couldn't get through 500 words; I might have HIV.
> 
> I flipped to the last page.
> 
>"Fact Sheet: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Your tests results."
>Cool, a table; I can handle that. I flipped back to the page with my
>test results three times to determine what row of the table held my
>fate. It was the last one:
> 
>You most likely are not infected with HIV. You probably have a false
>positive HIV screening test that is not due to infection.
> 
>While "not infected" was the key phrase, two other words stuck out in
>my mind:
> 
>Most likely. 
> 
>Probably.
> 
>Living with HIV
>"Most likely" and "probably" didn't make me feel much better. The
>table only took into account two of the HIV tests, what about the
>other five listed on the test results sheet?
> 
>For about five minutes I just sat at my desk, staring at the letter. I
>tried to read it again, but couldn't. The reputable Red Cross told me
>I had tested positive for HIV. I had HIV.
> 
>At the time, I worked on a project that dealt with HIV/AIDS in
>developing countries, so I knew it was possible to test positive, but
>not have The Hiv or The Aids. I also knew that I didn't live a rock n'
>roll lifestyle, so unless my ladyfriend was out there shaking her
>behind for other menfolk (not likely), the test results were wrong. Of
>course, there was the possibility that I could have contracted it from
>some act that was previously considered safe — like using a
>Johnny-on-the-Spot; blowing my nose into a tissue I picked up on the
>street; or having a hemophiliac, bug chasing, heroin addict as my
>partner in CPR class.
> 
>I felt better after thinking it through, but I needed to talk to
>someone. I called a friend and co-worker (I wasn't ready to call my
>ladyfriend yet)— one of the few people in my address book who wouldn't
>think my test results meant I had engaged in manlove. Then I called my
>HMO and demanded an appointment the next morning to have my blood
>retested.
> 
>Finally I was able to concentrate and read the entire letter. The
>western blot test was the important one — I got a negative on that
>one, meaning I had a false positive and "it should have no effect on
>your health." Feeling better, I called my ladyfriend and ended up
>being the one assuring her that I/we were fine. After we hung up, she
>did a slew of online research and found more information, including
>that many other people had similar scares from the Red Cross.
> 
>Even after having worked a 12-hour day, I couldn't sleep that night. I
>got out of bed and booted up the computer. When my instant messenger
>started, I saw that my ladyfriend was online. She couldn't sleep
>either.
> 
>A few days later it was confirmed — my doctor told me I was negative.
>My ladyfriend's test came back a few days after that, also negative.
> 
>The Red Cross's callous attitude
>Unfortunately, this wasn't the first scare the Red Cross gave me.
> 
>I started giving blood a few months before I got that letter. A couple
>of weeks after my first donation, there was a message on my voice mail
>from the Red Cross — it was nothing urgent, the woman said, but she'd
>like me to give her a call back. I got the tingles. I'd already
>scheduled an appointment to donate again: Why was she calling? Well,
>she said it was nothing urgent. Of course she said that, fool, what's
>she going to say, "Hi Zach, this is the Red Cross. You've got The Hiv,
>if you have any questions, feel free to call us back. Toodles."?
> 
>I called, a five-second transfer felt five minutes, and I found out
>that I had a high level of something-or-other in my blood (iron, I
>think), which made me an ideal donor for platelets, would I care to be
>an apheresis donor? The process involved having blood sucked out of
>one arm, run through a blood cell separator that removes the
>platelets, and then the now-thinner blood being put back into the
>other arm. It would also take a couple of hours, during which time I
>could watch a movie. Sure, why not — being asked to go through the
>human equivalent of an oil change doesn't seem so bad when you're half
>expecting to be told you have a disease.
> 
>How the Red Cross could improve its death notification process 
>No one should have to spend the better part of an evening thinking he
>might have HIV because of a letter from the Red Cross. Here are some
>suggestions as to how the Red Cross can stop causing people to have an
>evening like mine:
> 
>Don't send letters to people who test positive for HIV
>I don't know the Red Cross's procedure for notifying donors who
>actually are HIV positive, but no one should ever be informed that he
>or she tested positive for HIV via a form letter. Call people whose
>test results are positive— whether they are false positives or the
>real thing. That cuts down on the chance of someone misinterpreting
>them or doing something drastic.
> 
>If letters much be sent, make them reader friendly
>No one should have to flip through five pages to find a fact sheet to
>tell him whether or not he has HIV/AIDS and "should you or your
>personal physical wish to discuss your test result(s), please call
>800-562-1872 during the hours of 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through
>Friday, and ask to speak to a donor counselor."
> 
>Right after the two paragraphs in the letter I quoted above, it should
>say, in bold indented text:
> 
>You tests results are what the Red Cross believes to be a false
>positive, meaning that you are most likely not infected with HIV.
> 
>See, it's not that hard to do. Putting that information — the most
>important part f the letter — up front will prevent recipients from
>thinking the worst as they try to decipher what their test results
>really mean. As a writer/editor, I will gladly work with the Red Cross
>to improve its correspondence (of course, I will ask for more
>compensation than the juice, cookies, and stickers that the Red Cross
>gives blood donors).
> 
>Stop sending junk mail
>All of that junk mail increases the odds that important letters from
>the Red Cross end up in the trash bin — unopened, as mine almost did.
>People who donate blood know they are doing a good thing — that's why
>they do it. They'd probably appreciate the money their blood gets for
>the Red Cross being spent on disaster relief, not pamphlets.
> 
>Leave articulate voice mail messages
>Instead of leaving a voice mail message with the generic "please call
>us back," Red Cross representatives should state the reason for their
>call. If they are concerned that specific information left on an
>answering machine might violate someone's privacy, don't leave a
>message, just call back later.
> 
>-----------
>Read www.ZachEverson.com
>Subscribe www.groups.yahoo.com/group/ZachEverson
>Op-ed articles, humor columns, true stories of zany exploits, and a
>business dictionary.
>Topics include news, sports, business, life, arts and entertainment,
>sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.