News & Record, Greensboro, NC
,
°
Humidity: %
Wind: mph,
Market Place
TriadCareers TriadCars TriadHomes Triad Marketplace Business Directory Classifieds Newspaper Ads Featured Job Ads Archives Apartments Celebrations Obituaries Place an Ad Personals Print Advertising Ad Post Online Advertising N&R Store
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Sections
test
Letters to the Editor
Thursday, July 26, 2007

« Exposing Valerie Plame was a treasonous act | Main | Drivers with cell phones put others in danger »

Military blood program meets troops' needs

The July 11 column by Lorraine Ahearn contained inaccuracies that the Armed Services Blood Program (ASBP) would like to correct.

First, there was no rule change July 3. The Army Blood Program director recently reinforced that blood drives should be limited to military installations and federal sites. There have been blood drives that did not adhere to this policy in the past.

Also, ASBP collections have always met the needs of our troops and military treatment facilities without infringing upon civilian needs.

Even now the ASBP collects a mere fraction of what civilian agencies collect (this year approximately 170,000 units of blood by the ASBP, and more than 13 million units by civilian blood programs). The need for blood is heard loud and often, mainly due to its perishable nature.

Finally, the cameras directed at field hospitals in-theater reflect the serious struggle of our military medical personnel to save lives, not the blood needs. The ASBP can get blood anywhere in the world within 72 hours. At times, surgeons call for fresh whole blood, in addition to the stock they have, because the coagulation factors in fresh whole blood can be of great benefit to the severely wounded.

We sincerely thank you for your interest in the military's blood program and look forward to working with you in the future.

Michael Libby
Falls Church, Va
.

The writer, a commander in the U.S. Navy, is director of the Armed Services Blood Program.

Comments (1)

OK, this Counterpoint author states "inaccuracies." Then notes, "First,...."

However, there is no "second" and successive "inaccuracies."

So this person takes time to read an article and write a opinion piece due to one thing that was technically incorrectly, though not necessarily wrong. It sounds as though someone has more time to waste than necessary.

How sad.

Shalom

Post a comment

Contact Us | About Us | News & Record Jobs | Terms of Use | Subscribe | Help
Print Advertising | Online Advertising | © 2004 News & Record
Subscription Services, Manage your subscription, Create a subscription

ADVERTISEMENT