Red Cross Blood Donation Center - Orem

[J_dazzle23]

[Edited by mod to remove quote from prior post. -Don]

Charles and co, I will throw my .02 cents in here.

We live in a country(world, for that matter) FULL of unhealthy people. there are more men in the us with hypertension or CAD than there are really people in California are new York combined.

For example, one such illness like orthostatic hypotension is quite common, especially in women and older folks. This disorder causes people to get woozy and pass out when they stand up too quickly. I've seen it quite often.

Another one is epilepsy. Many people respond to medicine worse than others. A grand maul seizure is a much bigger deal than simply passing out due to a temporary drop in BP.

I am sure we would typically consider it reprehensible to suggest that people with an illness that may cause them to lose consciousness briefly are not fit to conceal a firearm. I see this as a slippery slope.

They MIGHT pass out, wake up, unholster their gun and freak people out so we should prohibit them? I'm not buying that.

OTOH, it IS a private business, and they can restrict whatever they like. that's different than governmental restriction, as in my example.

To say that it is a legit reason to prohibit guns? possibly . And im not positive that i agree with it. But to think that's the actual reason they did, I just think of that as a LIL bit of a stretch. With all the "just follow these rules because they have been this way forever" types in hospital and medical administration like you mentioned, I doubt they put any more thought into it other than "oh guns are dangerous, let's not allow them" or possibly "we get a break on our insurance if we put this sign up"

[UtahCFP]

Hmmm....

one is supposed to maintain control of a firearm. Passing out means losing control (and I guess you could argue falling asleep would be as well). Take this to an extreme, and nobody could carry a firearm if it is possible they will be involved in an accident that could render them unconscious -- like a car wreck. Maybe a means for the gun-control to push the idea of a firearm that can only be fired by it's recognized owner (thumbprint, whatever).

[bagpiper]

To say that it is a legit reason to prohibit guns? possibly . And im not positive that i agree with it. But to think that's the actual reason they did, I just think of that as a LIL bit of a stretch. With all the "just follow these rules because they have been this way forever" types in hospital and medical administration like you mentioned, I doubt they put any more thought into it other than "oh guns are dangerous, let's not allow them" or possibly "we get a break on our insurance if we put this sign up"

one is supposed to maintain control of a firearm. Passing out means losing control (and I guess you could argue falling asleep would be as well). Take this to an extreme, and nobody could carry a firearm if it is possible they will be involved in an accident that could render them unconscious -- like a car wreck. Maybe a means for the gun-control to push the idea of a firearm that can only be fired by it's recognized owner (thumbprint, whatever).

As I noted in the thread about the Darren Hunt shooting, I will defend a person's legal right to own and carry a gun right up to the point he violates someone else's rights. If a man is trusted to walk the streets unsupervised then his rights must be respected. IE, until we can convict or commit him, we have to respect his rights.

It is for this reason that I, a tea-totaler, am very supportive of Utah's law that permits lawfully carrying a firearm into a bar or restaurant that serve alcohol, and even permits imbibing; our law in this regard only bans being intoxicated and in possession of a gun. My position should not be confused as actually encouraging the use of alcohol or any other drug while carrying. Indeed, I think it highly prudent not to carry when drinking, or not to drink when carrying. I think it only prudent to avoid carrying while using pain meds or other drugs that affect motor control, brain function, etc, and certainly until one is quite certain of what effect and what level of impairment, if any, the drugs have on the individual. But I do not support a law banning possession while using such medications unless their effects are demonstratively or objectively comparable to being legally intoxicated.

I think it a good idea to empty the chamber on long guns before placing them into a vehicle. But I strongly support current law that exempts permit holders from that requirement. And not because getting a permit makes one smarter or less likely to have an accident with a fully loaded long gun in a car.

Not every bad, foolish, or potentially dangerous practice needs a criminal penalty attached.

I'd like to see less, not more government regulation. But that doesn't mean I want to see individuals or businesses behaving badly.

I think it would be great if businesses placed such an emphasis on worker safety that they would take every reasonable measure to assure it whether OSHA required them to do so or not. It is wonderful when employers go above and beyond legal requirements to take care of and support their workers who are in the National Guard or Reserves. Would that employers would reach out to attract and employ, with necessary accommodations, that handicapped without any threat of ADA lawsuits. Wouldn't it be wonderful in companies would voluntarily limit executive pay while providing employees real and meaningful profit sharing, without any threat of regulations or laws?

Shouldn't we, as gun owners, encourage personal responsibility rather than pushing for laws that would certainly be overly broad and grossly abused?

If a man is walking the streets unsupervised, he is entitled to his rights...ALL of them.

But it is clearly prudent for some of those men to make a personal determination that they should not personally own a gun, or maybe not carry a gun outside their own homes as a matter of protecting themselves or the public.

And it is probably a good thing that lots of regular blood donors view the "No Gun" policy at the Red Cross as highly offensive, despite my take on it. In making your voices heard the next time they call asking for a donation, or even dropping them a letter explaining why you won't be donating in the future, you may be the catalyst to changing an overly broad policy into something more appropriate such as either leaving the matter entirely up to the individual, or, including a brief portion on the potential risk as part of the educational overview or personal questions. "A small number of donors feel lightheaded or pass out. In rare cases such an event could lead a person to instinctively handling a firearm they are carrying before they are fully cogent. If you are carrying a firearm and would like us to secure it for you, please let us know during the private interview."

Charles

[justBeth]

Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, we also collect blood donations and operate a transfusion medicine division, in addition to several other lab services. As an MLT and certified phlebotomist I have been fairly extensively trained in blood collection, processing, handling and transfusion. Yes it is possible for someone to pass out after a transfusion, although most people get light headed or sick and lay down before they pass out. Yes it is possible for someone to reach for their gun, most likely to ensure it is still secure, before the donation staff feel like they are completly "with it". All of the points that have been previously made are valid, even those that are examples of incredibly rare events. Are any of them good reasons for Red Cross to prohibit concealed firearms, IMO no.
That being said, blood donation saves lives. If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.

[quychang]

Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, we also collect blood donations and operate a transfusion medicine division, in addition to several other lab services. As an MLT and certified phlebotomist I have been fairly extensively trained in blood collection, processing, handling and transfusion. Yes it is possible for someone to pass out after a transfusion, although most people get light headed or sick and lay down before they pass out. Yes it is possible for someone to reach for their gun, most likely to ensure it is still secure, before the donation staff feel like they are completly "with it". All of the points that have been previously made are valid, even those that are examples of incredibly rare events. Are any of them good reasons for Red Cross to prohibit concealed firearms, IMO no.
That being said, blood donation saves lives. If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.

Thank you Beth, for sharing a voice of reason, from within the industry! Before I donate, I need to clear it with my physician, I'm on a small pharmacy of medications. Also I need to ask, is there an office up north of SLC? For me to drive to Orem to donate would require a very specific set of circumstances. Meaning either a family member or close friend. I know, I could google it, and will if you don't answer, but it's good to see you participating in a forum.

Mel

[D-FIN]

Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, we also collect blood donations and operate a transfusion medicine division, in addition to several other lab services. As an MLT and certified phlebotomist I have been fairly extensively trained in blood collection, processing, handling and transfusion. Yes it is possible for someone to pass out after a transfusion, although most people get light headed or sick and lay down before they pass out. Yes it is possible for someone to reach for their gun, most likely to ensure it is still secure, before the donation staff feel like they are completly "with it". All of the points that have been previously made are valid, even those that are examples of incredibly rare events. Are any of them good reasons for Red Cross to prohibit concealed firearms, IMO no.
That being said, blood donation saves lives. If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.

Thank you Beth, for sharing a voice of reason, from within the industry! Before I donate, I need to clear it with my physician, I'm on a small pharmacy of medications. Also I need to ask, is there an office up north of SLC? For me to drive to Orem to donate would require a very specific set of circumstances. Meaning either a family member or close friend. I know, I could google it, and will if you don't answer, but it's good to see you participating in a forum.

Mel

http://www.utahblood.org/locations.html

[bagpiper]

Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, ...

If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.

Beth,

Thank you. I appreciate the alternative view point and the knowledge that ARUP doesn't ban guns at their donation centers. I can now actually let the Red Cross recruiters know that I now donate via ARUP because of the Red Cross policy that at the very least is needlessly broad.

Charles

[justBeth]

ARUP has donor centers in their research park location and in Sandy just south of 9000 and west of the freeway. They can be ready reached by calling 801-583-2787 and asking for donor services. They are really great to work with and are actually more cautious about medical rejections than Red Cross is.

[glock fan]

I sure would like to hear the Red Cross' reasoning for the gun buster sign. Maybe I'll stop in and donate. Possibly organize a decent size OC event. It is my understanding that blood banks have a rough time during the holidays because less folks donate.

[gravedancer]

If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.

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.

[D-FIN]

If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.

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.

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.

[bagpiper]

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

[quychang]

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

[JoeSparky]

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!

[quychang]

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!

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