AFTER we watched our country under attack over two months ago, many University students felt helpless. They wanted to help the victims of the terrorist attacks, but there was little they could do, except give blood. Now it is apparent that this was a huge waste of time, and the American Red Cross should be ashamed of itself.
The devastation of the attacks in Manhattan left very few survivors. Many realized at the time that the rescue workers would not pull many people out alive. But many individuals and organizations in the country proclaimed that people should give blood. The University Web site listed the location and times of blood drives. President George W. Bush talked with pride about all of the blood Americans had donated. Perhaps the entire drive was more for psychological purposes. Americans wanted to feel that they could help out. It turns out that instead of standing in line for hours at the Fashion Square Mall or any of countless blood donation sites in Charlottesville and throughout the country, these people would have been better off donating money.
According to The Washington Post, the Red Cross knew that the blood donations would not be used for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks ("Red Cross Solicited Unneeded Blood," Nov. 11).
In a telephone interview, Rebecca Hinkle, Mid-Atlantic Communications Director of the American Red Cross confirmed that The Washington Post was correct. She said, "Yes we did continue to collect blood even after we realized that it could not help victims of the Sept. 11 attacks." Hinkle cites worries about future attacks and not wanting to turn people away as reasons for the continued acceptance of blood donations.
But blood is not like canned food. It is perishable. People may be led to believe that the Red Cross and other agencies can never have too much blood. This image is reinforced because there is a perpetual blood shortage. One reason for this blood shortage is that blood is perishable. It has a 42-day shelf life, which means that the Red Cross and other blood agencies almost always need more blood because what they have spoils. As much as one in every five donations since the Sept. 11 attacks may be discarded, according to directors of several Red Cross centers. But Hinkle says that in the Mid-Atlantic area, which includes Virginia and North Carolina, only 3-3.5 percent of blood collected after Sept. 11 will need to be discarded.
The controversy has led to the resignation of Red Cross President Bernadine Healy. The scandal even extends to the money the Red Cross collected for victims of the attacks. Fifty million dollars or 10 percent of the amount collected by the generous American public for the victims of the terrorist attacks was originally allocated instead to be used to create a reserve of frozen blood. But public outcry led the Red Cross to reverse this decision Nov. 14 and give all of the money to victims of the attacks.
After the tragedy of Sept. 11, the Red Cross should have asked people to stagger their blood donations. It is reasonable to have a full blood supply in the country, especially in this new age of terrorism on American soil. But if the Red Cross had just been honest with Americans, explained the situation, and encouraged people to delay giving blood once they had met their storage limits, everyone would have been better off.
Instead of donating blood, money would have been much more valuable. Although almost no blood has been able to help the victims of Sept. 11, money has. People tend to look down at simply giving financial donations because giving blood seems more heroic. But it is not. The son of a dead fireman in New York needs money to go to college, not extra blood.
Despite everything that has happened, the University community still must give blood when the Red Cross or whoever else requests it again. People should not become disillusioned by the incompetence of the Red Cross in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedy but instead remember that blood does save lives. There soon will be another blood shortage, and even if it is not for the victims of huge terrorist attacks, people still need this blood to survive. The University community cannot only donate blood when a catastrophe happens, but should do it regularly. While our vigilance against terrorism can never cease, neither can our generosity.
(Harris Freier's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 34 minutes agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
