Ummm, weren't there search engines before Google? Seems to me like the parents are the ones who prevented the unnecessary transfusion. The search engine is just a tool, the same way a library, a second opinion, and alternative medicines are tools.

Reply

There were search engines before Google, but I'll give Google the save on this one for making it possible to do these searches on the spot with your cell phone, right there in the hospital.

Reply

As a pediatrician, hematologist and a parent, I can certainly understand the parents' concern, and agree that transfusion for their infant was unnecessary. However, describing a blood transfusion as "extremely dangerous" today is not supported by current scientific knowledge. The main infectious risks, of AIDS and hepatitis, are now well below one in 1 million.

Reply

As Dr. Naiman pointed out, blood transfusions are incredlibly safe. I've been receiving them for nine and a half years with no problems. I'm going for one tomorrow. One thing I don't like is that I have to dish out $450 dollars per bag (I use 4 per transfusion--washed) to the Red Cross. All they do with the blood is burn the extra.

Reply

As a fellow doctor I have to agree with Dr. Naiman, to call a transfusion "extremely dangerous" is just incorrect. Also it is important to remember that medicine is not a black and white practice. When one reads an article you must determine if you patient fits the patient population or even the circumstances. The treatment suggest by the ER doctor wasn't completely insane in anyway, and would have done little harm. Obviously the child was sypmtomatic or they wouldn't have come to the ER.

Good job to the parent's for looking into the care of the child. But sometimes one article doesn't always mean this is the best treatment for this situation.

Reply

"As a pediatrician, hematologist and a parent, I can certainly understand the parents' concern, and agree that transfusion for their infant was unnecessary. However, describing a blood transfusion as "extremely dangerous" today is not supported by current scientific knowledge. The main infectious risks, of AIDS and hepatitis, are now well below one in 1 million."

My mother recently passed away of transfusion-contracted HIV. Having been in the hospital for chest pains, which later led to a bypass operation, pneumonia and more surgery, it was ultimately her body's inability to fight further infection that caused her demise.

That said, the hospital did not, until prompted by attorneys, reveal that they had in fact given her HIV, and hid her from that knowledge for over 2 years, potentially skewing your "current scientific knowledge", as there are no statistics of undisclosed complications.

Reply

Maybe its not EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

but i have to say, there is ALWAYS a big risk in doing those kind of things, no matter how protective you get, there is STILL that risk as mentioned 1 in 1 million, how do you know you won't be that 1?

It's not that big of a chance, but its at least lower than winning the lottery.

Reply

It doesn't say why they had to take the baby to the ER. That's suspicious to me, like we aren't getting the whole story. However, I think this story (if true) shows that doctors don't always know best. What scares me, however, is that medical information prior to the early 90s is rarely searchable online ... giving a very skewed and limited picture if patients and medical professionals do most of their medical research on Google!

http://mrshiney.froppy.com/blog/

Reply

I'm very happy for you. :-)
Did this happen in East Texas by chance? The reason I'm curious is because when the doctors and hospitals here find out you have insurance, the more you are likely to be over-treated.
The more insurance you have, the more illnesses they find to treat.On the other hand, if you are indigent, or homeless, you are perfectly healthy and that blood and tissue that you are coughing up is normal for 32 year olds.Here's an aspirin, now run along.

Reply

"However, I think this story (if true) shows that doctors don't always know best."

This is called defensive medicine. You want to know why doctors insist that the infant (or anyone) get a transfusion even if they know that the patient does not really need it? It's because there's always that 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the patient actually does need it. And, because juries love to believe that doctors are not human and therefore cannot ever make mistakes, and accordingly give out $250 million dollar settlements even for ridiculous things like *genetic* diseases, doctors are forced to overtreat every single patient in order to protect themselves. If you're a 20 year-old man who's never smoked, eats a healthful vegetarian diet, and runs 5 miles a day, and you come in to the ER with chest discomfort, chances are that it's just heartburn, anxiety, or a chest muscle strain. However, as unlikely as it would be for that patient to gave a heart attack at age 20, he *WILL* get a full heart attack workup, with EKG, radiological imaging, cardiac enzymes, serum chemistries, complete blood count, etc. Why does this happen, even when the doctor *KNOWS* that there's nothing wrong with the patient? He does it because of the off-chance that the patient did have a heart attack, and if he hadn't worked it up completely, even if no lasting harm was done from the heart attack, the doctor would get sued for $20 million dollars -- and the jury would side with the patient. The doctor just lost every penny and watches his insurance premiums go from $80,000 a year to $160,000, which is more than the average physician's salary. *THAT* is why pediatricians give blood transfusions to babies that may not need it.

Reply

"My mother recently passed away of transfusion-contracted HIV."

With all due respect to your grandmother, anecdotal evidence such as this is meaningless, as there are always isolated incidents or freak accidents that go against the grain. However, standardized, randomized, double-blind testing has revealed that the risk is less than 1 in 1 million, making blood transfusions *extremely* safe.

To put it into perspective, you are 100 times more likely to drown in your own bathtub, 20 times more likely to be struck by lightening, 200 times more likely to die from hypothermia, and 3 times more likely to die from just a spider bite! (stats from the National Safety Council).

In other words, if you you're the uneducated type that places signifiance in isolated events and ignores the factual data, you should also never bathe, never go outside, but lots of blankets, and become a bug exterminator!

Reply

And who says we're heading towards a medical crisis? I mean, so what if several doctors ordered an emergency blood transfusion on an infant with absolutely no evidence of why it was so necessary.

Reply

Great story! Guess I'll be changing my home page back to Google.

Reply

Oh dear oh dear. This is just another prime example of the CORRUPTION in the American health care system. The amount of money doctors make charging for unnecssary treatments is sickening (pun intended). I paid $800 dollars yesterday for a 10 minute visit!!! In every other developed nation this would be free. America a great nation? In some parts infant mortality rates are worse than in Africa.

Reply

Yea so what about insurance premiums going up steadily for the last decade....Y is that? Its because patients have become lawsuit-happy and want every penny they can...I dont understand y these doctors would prescribe a transfusion for a baby who doesnt need it unless they want more lawsuits, higher premiums and ultimately HIGHER MEDICAL COSTS....hmmmmmmm

Reply