Utah Guns Forum banner

Red Cross Blood Donation Center - Orem

16K views 37 replies 12 participants last post by  bagpiper 
#1 ·
I went to donate blood this week at the Red Cross office in Orem and they had a new "No Concealed Weapons" sign on the door. I've been donating there for the past 5 years (carrying for the last 4) and that's the first time the sign has been there. I know I could have simply donated and nobody would have known, but I figured if they didn't want my blood because of my weapon I would be happy to keep it to myself.

I mentioned to the person at the front desk that I had a concealed weapon, and if I was no longer welcome because a new policy that I would not be able to donate today. He was a little confused, I'm assuming I was the first one to make an issue of the sign. His initial response was "I don't even know why we have that sign, we don't handle any cash." To which I thought, ya, and if you did, that sign sure would protect you from anyone intent on relieving you of it. Of course the smart alec in me wanted to simply uncover my gun and ask if that would suffice, since it was no longer concealed, but I didn't expect anyone else to appreciate the humor. He asked if I could leave my weapon in my car while I donated. I responded that that wasn't a compromise I was willing to make when I'm donating to them. He disappeared to talk to whoever must have been in charge, and then came back and told me that I couldn't donate with my weapon, so I left.

I expect I'll get a call in a couple weeks asking me to make another appointment, at which time I'll inform them that as I'm happy to donate as soon as I'm welcome back at that location. I don't know if this is a decision made at that local office, or something pushed down from a national office. I'll probably write a letter to the local office at some point, but I guess I get a break from the bloodsuckers for the time being.
 
See less See more
#27 ·
gravedancer said:
Yes but then you are supporting Primary Children's, which I wont do because they get far too nosy and try to interject themselves into peoples decisions, even going so far as to try to get peoples kids taken away for having guns in the house, or seeking a second opinion on health care matters before letting them perform a surgery on their child.
I certainly understand and share your concerns about PMC. For many, the Parker Jensen case was a last straw. For me, it hit too close to home. I very nearly had a Parker Jensen kind of experience back in the mid 80s when some PMC doctors figured they knew better than I or my parents how to handle my medical problems.

But as a parent with two children who have required surgery, I'm really grateful to have PMC (and Shriners) so close. World class pediatric medical care is something parents hope they never need and are very grateful to have when we do require it.

The way to fix to PMC is to fix DCFS. Donating good, clean blood to kids who need it, is the right thing to do. And babies need blood that is even fresher than do adults, so PMC has acute needs for local donors.

Charles
 
#28 ·
bagpiper said:
gravedancer said:
Yes but then you are supporting Primary Children's, which I wont do because they get far too nosy and try to interject themselves into peoples decisions, even going so far as to try to get peoples kids taken away for having guns in the house, or seeking a second opinion on health care matters before letting them perform a surgery on their child.
I certainly understand and share your concerns about PMC. For many, the Parker Jensen case was a last straw. For me, it hit too close to home. I very nearly had a Parker Jensen kind of experience back in the mid 80s when some PMC doctors figured they knew better than I or my parents how to handle my medical problems.

But as a parent with two children who have required surgery, I'm really grateful to have PMC (and Shriners) so close. World class pediatric medical care is something parents hope they never need and are very grateful to have when we do require it.

The way to fix to PMC is to fix DCFS. Donating good, clean blood to kids who need it, is the right thing to do. And babies need blood that is even fresher than do adults, so PMC has acute needs for local donors.

Charles
I certainly have no love for DCFS, nor do I have a problem with Primary Children's quality of care. But blaming DCFS for Primary Children making the choice to get them involved is a bit of a stretch for me. If there is obvious child abuse, or even a strong suspicion, I can and do support the decision to have it investigated. But if Gravedancer is right, and they choose to involve DCFS over knowing there's guns in the home, something is broken. And it's not at DCFS.

Mel
 
#29 ·
Mel, et. al.

I think the issue is of certain medical facilities/professional involving state agencies over a disagreement on desired/proper care of the patient. My personal opinion is that the DCFS agencies/personel in many, if not all the various states have been given too much latitude and not enough responsibility for their actions especially when it is join in collusion with the medical agencies/personel with an agenda by all involved in the stripping of parental rights and the imposition of the "State" as parent! :disgusted:
 
#30 ·
JoeSparky said:
Mel, et. al.

I think the issue is of certain medical facilities/professional involving state agencies over a disagreement on desired/proper care of the patient. My personal opinion is that the DCFS agencies/personel in many, if not all the various states have been given too much latitude and not enough responsibility for their actions especially when it is join in collusion with the medical agencies/personel with an agenda by all involved in the stripping of parental rights and the imposition of the "State" as parent! :disgusted:
I agree with you, maybe I didn't say it clearly. DCFS would not be involved if they weren't called by the care giver, be it whoever. It's not like they have an agent that sits in each hospital and screens each case and watches for concealed carry or open carry firearms. There is no doubt that DCFS serves a necessary roll in many cases...but that said, yes, they have too much leeway granted and not enough oversight. Like other government agencies we could and have mentioned and discussed at length. Disagreements over treatment options should not be a reason to bring them in. I guess I can understand if they insist on a second opinion, provided that it's left to the parent to decide whether to take the advice or at least get to choose the provider supplying the second opinion.

Mel
 
#31 ·
D-FIN said:
All your doing is providing life saving blood to those who need here locally. IMHO not donating blood when you can just because you don't like how they have dealt with some patients is kinda selfish. Blood goes to those who are in need of it to save lives and children would be of the highest priority regardless of the hospital.

I'm not saying your belief about PCH is right or wrong just that it should not be a factor in donating blood if you can. Feel free to not donate any money to them if it is your wish.
Im far more likely to donate blood at a regular blood bank (even with a no guns policy) than I am to donate somewhere where I know its directly going to Primary childrens. Its simply a fact that im less offended by a business putting up a no guns sign than I am by one who actively seeks to interfere in peoples parental decisions and "punish" parents who disagree with them.

I'll just continue to donate at red cross centers and ignore their no firearms sign. Its always worked well in the past.
 
#32 ·
gravedancer said:
D-FIN said:
All your doing is providing life saving blood to those who need here locally. IMHO not donating blood when you can just because you don't like how they have dealt with some patients is kinda selfish. Blood goes to those who are in need of it to save lives and children would be of the highest priority regardless of the hospital.

I'm not saying your belief about PCH is right or wrong just that it should not be a factor in donating blood if you can. Feel free to not donate any money to them if it is your wish.
Im far more likely to donate blood at a regular blood bank (even with a no guns policy) than I am to donate somewhere where I know its directly going to Primary childrens. Its simply a fact that im less offended by a business putting up a no guns sign than I am by one who actively seeks to interfere in peoples parental decisions and "punish" parents who disagree with them.

I'll just continue to donate at red cross centers and ignore their no firearms sign. Its always worked well in the past.
Thats great but to be fair even though she listed PMC as one of the hospitals she was not specifically pointing to PMC and saying its going there. She was saying that it would used locally and listed some local hospitals as examples. ARUP is a local Lab with their own blood bank vs Red Cross being an international health organization. You drew your own conclusions based on your personal bias from that but that's ok kids in Zimbabwe need blood to :D
 
#33 ·
quychang said:
I agree with you, maybe I didn't say it clearly. DCFS would not be involved if they weren't called by the care giver, be it whoever. It's not like they have an agent that sits in each hospital and screens each case and watches for concealed carry or open carry firearms.
I won't say that the docs and/or admins at PCMC are blameless. I don't know.

But there are two things to consider:

1-If I'm not mistaken DCFS does have an office inside PCMC. Not sure who instigated this but I'm guessing it has something to do with:

2-Our child abuse reporting laws have become so strict, with such a high duty to report for various groups like docs, nurses, cops, and teachers, that it has reached the point of warning labels in California: Safer to label everything as dangerous than risk a violation for not labeling something you were legally required to label. It is clear to me we've gone way too far. If a doc or nurse doesn't report something and that something later is the cause of injury to a child and someone realizes a doc knew about it but didn't report it, he finds himself in a serious sling.

You want a second opinion and that could delay treatment for a couple of weeks? Report it lest the delay in treatment results in problems and weren't reported, or worse yet, the 2nd opinion is a ruse to avoid all treatment and it turns into a case of medical neglect. A gun in the home with any evidence of it not being stored correctly? Ditto. The slightest chance that a kid has any injuries at all that might be from abuse or neglect? Safer to report than risk losing a license or even facing criminal charges yourself.

Sure, sucks for the families who basically doing things right. But after spending literally a lifetime of hard work and a million dollars of educational costs to get that "M.D." behind their names, I can't entirely blame docs for not sticking their necks out if there is the slightest question. Not in today's legal environment. And that is even before we consider how many parents wouldn't give a second thought to suing that doc for a lottery winning if anything goes wrong with the treatment, or the fact that it is almost a prerequisite to becoming a doctor to have an ego large enough to make judges blush. The difference between God and a brain surgeon? God doesn't think he is a brain surgeon. :D

IOW, I'm guessing the only think unique about PCMC when it comes to interactions with DCFS is simply the shear number of children that PCMC handles. Maybe as still a true charitable hospital rather than one of so many IHC wings, Shriners' might be different; I've never had any experience there. But really, along the Wasatch Front, most hospitals don't even carry pediatric sized equipment. PCMC and Shriners are that good. EVERY child goes there. Nobody else even makes an attempt to work with kids except perhaps to stabilize long enough for an ambulance or life flight ride to PCMC.

These days, all parents are advised to have good relationships with their pediatricians and to begin educating children on what we do and don't say around doctors and teachers just like we do around cops. For all intents and purposes, the law as deputized and pressed into service anyone who has professional (or even volunteer) responsibilities for children as agents of the state.

We need to defang DCFS by removing the professional, in-house guardian ad litems and returning to community volunteers for those positions. We need to loosen up on legal requirements for docs and others to report any possible problem.

Denying blood to sick children over the laws of the State or even the policies of the docs/admins is really beyond me. Even Israeli PM Golda Meir didn't hold to policy over the welfare of children (allusion to her response to Palestinian terrorists taking Israeli school children hostage).

Charles
 
#34 ·
bagpiper said:
I won't say that the docs and/or admins at PCMC are blameless. I don't know.

But there are two things to consider:

1-If I'm not mistaken DCFS does have an office inside PCMC. Not sure who instigated this but I'm guessing it has something to do with:

2-Our child abuse reporting laws have become so strict, with such a high duty to report for various groups like docs, nurses, cops, and teachers, that it has reached the point of warning labels in California: Safer to label everything as dangerous than risk a violation for not labeling something you were legally required to label. It is clear to me we've gone way too far. If a doc or nurse doesn't report something and that something later is the cause of injury to a child and someone realizes a doc knew about it but didn't report it, he finds himself in a serious sling.

You want a second opinion and that could delay treatment for a couple of weeks? Report it lest the delay in treatment results in problems and weren't reported, or worse yet, the 2nd opinion is a ruse to avoid all treatment and it turns into a case of medical neglect. A gun in the home with any evidence of it not being stored correctly? Ditto. The slightest chance that a kid has any injuries at all that might be from abuse or neglect? Safer to report than risk losing a license or even facing criminal charges yourself.

Sure, sucks for the families who basically doing things right. But after spending literally a lifetime of hard work and a million dollars of educational costs to get that "M.D." behind their names, I can't entirely blame docs for not sticking their necks out if there is the slightest question. Not in today's legal environment. And that is even before we consider how many parents wouldn't give a second thought to suing that doc for a lottery winning if anything goes wrong with the treatment, or the fact that it is almost a prerequisite to becoming a doctor to have an ego large enough to make judges blush. The difference between God and a brain surgeon? God doesn't think he is a brain surgeon. :D

IOW, I'm guessing the only think unique about PCMC when it comes to interactions with DCFS is simply the shear number of children that PCMC handles. Maybe as still a true charitable hospital rather than one of so many IHC wings, Shriners' might be different; I've never had any experience there. But really, along the Wasatch Front, most hospitals don't even carry pediatric sized equipment. PCMC and Shriners are that good. EVERY child goes there. Nobody else even makes an attempt to work with kids except perhaps to stabilize long enough for an ambulance or life flight ride to PCMC.

These days, all parents are advised to have good relationships with their pediatricians and to begin educating children on what we do and don't say around doctors and teachers just like we do around cops. For all intents and purposes, the law as deputized and pressed into service anyone who has professional (or even volunteer) responsibilities for children as agents of the state.

We need to defang DCFS by removing the professional, in-house guardian ad litems and returning to community volunteers for those positions. We need to loosen up on legal requirements for docs and others to report any possible problem.

Denying blood to sick children over the laws of the State or even the policies of the docs/admins is really beyond me. Even Israeli PM Golda Meir didn't hold to policy over the welfare of children (allusion to her response to Palestinian terrorists taking Israeli school children hostage).

Charles
If you're right, and for the sake of discussion I'm going to assume you are, about DCFS having an office at PMC, I must assume I'm also wrong about other hospitals. I know for a fact that UoU medical center has a pediatric trauma unit, but I suspect due to proximity alone, most of the care takes place at PMC.

DCFS is doing their job. Period. Someone, I assume the legislature, outlined their powers and responsibilities. Any defanging would have to start with the state legislature.

I would not deny blood to a sick child. Regardless of the facility that handles the care. I may have said it before, due to prescriptions taken, etc. there's a pretty good chance they wouldn't want my blood. I'll admit to not having looked into whether they would or would not. But I would certainly make the offer if someone I personally knew was in need.

I frankly see no problem with blood donors that choose to donate at one place over another. People generally have what they consider to be valid reasons when they form a personal bias. And those reasons are generally "personal", and if they choose to not donate to one center over it, then I'm not going to question why. If a child at PMC needs a specific blood type, and local sources aren't able to meet that need, I'm certain the Red Cross will if they can. So choosing to donate to an international blood bank is not choosing to deny blood to children.

And also, frankly, those that choose to avoid Red Cross, are acting on personal bias when they do so. I don't see anyone on here, including me, pointing to that fact. Because most of us share it.

As for teaching, or a more controversial term, indoctrinating our children not to talk to doctors, or what to say and not say, is exactly how pedophiles get away with the things they inflict on children.

One final point goes back to the opening quote. Even if the DCFS does have an office in each hospital, I would still stand by my statement that they do not screen each case, or watch for firearms. They are not doctors, and would still have to be involved by the actual care giver. It makes little difference whether that is done by telephone, or by walking across the hall to the local branch. In fact, knowing Dr's and their case loads, I would assume such notification is still made by phone in most cases.

I do agree that DCFS has too much power, and abuse that power on an almost daily basis. The way to change it though is to start with their funding and their charter as mandated by legislation.

Mel
 
#35 ·
quychang said:
I do agree that DCFS has too much power, and abuse that power on an almost daily basis. The way to change it though is to start with their funding and their charter as mandated by legislation.
That is exactly my point.

The way to change PCMC docs, nurses, or admins deal with concerns over medical neglect of child abuse is to change laws via the legislature. Our reporting requirements put medical professionals in a very difficult spot: Report and maybe harm a good family, don't report and possibly risk civil or criminal charges yourself.

Withholding blood donations is not going to effect any positive change in these matters.

Charles
 
#36 ·
bagpiper said:
That is exactly my point.

The way to change PCMC docs, nurses, or admins deal with concerns over medical neglect of child abuse is to change laws via the legislature. Our reporting requirements put medical professionals in a very difficult spot: Report and maybe harm a good family, don't report and possibly risk civil or criminal charges yourself.

Withholding blood donations is not going to effect any positive change in these matters.

Charles
And my point is that choosing to donate at Red Cross is hardly the same thing as withholding blood donations. It may be somewhat easier to get from local banks, but I don't know that. The Red Cross will provide to any organization that requests it, not excluding PCMC.

I'm very much aware of the dilemma faced by medical and mental health professionals as regards to reporting. Without prying scabs off of very old wounds, I will simply say that those rules caused major issues in my family that go unresolved to this day 20+ years later. If someone has even 1/4 of the hard feelings towards PCMC as I have towards the state reporting requirements for mental health professionals, I understand why they would choose to donate at Red Cross.

That said, and not speaking for Gravedance, I would still guess that if a loved one of his ended up there, against his wishes, and needed blood, he would likely be in line to donate. Family usually trumps bias, I'm equally sure he'd do everything in his power to avoid the situation and have the loved one treated at Shriners or some other local hospital.

PCMC is an excellent facility, a point of pride for the state, and I support them and the quality of their work 100%. I fully understand the doctor's dilemma But my understanding is not likely to trump Gravedancer's bad experience.

On a slightly different subject, but related as being a personal bias story, my final falling out with the LDS church came over a pushy bishop who was determined that he WOULD administer to my dying father. On his first attempted visit he was told that he wasn't welcome and asked to leave. The next morning, at an hour chosen to be likely to be unmonitored, he and his bishopric attempted to slip by the family by using a back set of stairs. I was stressed by 2 days of no sleep, angry, frustrated, and very much needed to beat the bejesus out of someone. My very much loved, and devout cousin caught me about half way to the advancing trio and sat me down and said he'd handle it. I'm not sure what was said, but they did not return. Much to my disappointment.

They didn't have the excuse of state laws to hide behind, where as the doctors and care givers do. I'm not accusing them of doing so, simply pointing out that it makes it easy to blame someone else when I have little doubt they're following their natural inclinations in the matter.

But my real bottom line here is that it's unfair to accuse someone of withholding blood, just because they choose to make those donations at an alternate facility that they feel is more neutral and thus more acceptable to them

Mel
 
#37 ·
bagpiper said:
Withholding blood donations is not going to effect any positive change in these matters.

Charles
I never said I would withhold blood donations. I simply have only so much blood to give, and am more likely to donate to a red cross center than I am anyone who I know is more likely to benefit primary children's. The blood is still very much needed, and will go to help someone, somewhere. Basically my irritation with primary childrens more than offsets any irritation that red cross's no gun policy causes me.

I know full well what medical reporting requirements are like, having been married to a nurse practitioner. I also know that primary childrens on many occasions seems to have gone over and above those reporting requirements when it suited them, in ways that other hospitals declined to do in similar situations. They are WAY too far into the proverbial bed with DCFS.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top