What the hell?!!! Reusing syringes?!

Woodchuck · #1 03-06-2008, 06:56 AM

What the hell are these people thinking about? Reusing syringes?!

http://www.katu.com/news/medicalalert/16119847.html

afinalfantasy · #2 03-06-2008, 07:00 AM

People are pretty stupid nowadays.

**Josh Ryan** · #3 03-06-2008, 07:28 AM

They need to be punished, severely.

Mon Rominee · #4 03-06-2008, 07:32 AM

That is just obscene. These people should be stripped of their rights to practice, and incarcerated, held liable on every count, and punished accordingly.

Linas · #5 03-06-2008, 08:28 AM

Thats outrageous. If i got hepatitis or HIV, i would need a lot more than 10g's to make up for it. That wouldnt even come close to covering a year of medical expenses.

vinny · #6 03-06-2008, 08:38 AM

With 40,000 people potentially exposed it's quite a scare here. I can imagine everyone here will know someone who's been notified. These dumb***es need to do "hard time."
If we're talking about disposable syringes...those things are like cents apiece in bulk.

Vandelay · #7 03-06-2008, 08:52 AM

Yes, I'm assuming you can get several per dollar if you buy in bulk. Why would a clinic feel the need to re-use them? Craziness.

We had a pharmacist in our city a few years ago who confessed to dilluting hundreds of prescriptions to save money, including cancer drugs. People died because of it. Terrible stuff.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in506777.shtml

kesslari · #8 03-06-2008, 09:07 AM

10K per plaintiff seems awfully low and lenient - unless that's just for having visited the hospital and going through the mental gyrations that "knowing you've been exposed" would entail. Actual infection with a deadly disease - should be a much higher compensation, IMO.
And that shouldn't even *touch* the punitive aspects of the suit.

msquared · #9 03-06-2008, 09:09 AM

Stupid should hurt.

DigMe · #10 03-06-2008, 11:07 AM

What's wrong with that?

Sincerely,
Prison Tattoo Gadgets

Valerus · #11 03-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Pathetic.

peterbright · #12 03-06-2008, 11:26 AM

If you read the article, you would notice a very large misstatement about HIV "lying dormant" for many years. It can be detected soon after infection by testing for the virus itself (as they do on blood donations) or within 3 months if testing for antibodies to HIV (takes time for the infected individual's body to produce antibodies in sufficient quantity to be detected using standard screening tests). This time period is called the window period & is not a period of latentcy. It takes someone infected with HIV a considerable time to end up with a destroyed immune system (9 - 11 years without treatment), but they are infectious and will test positive soon after infection.

What were these idiots thinking? We've had some transplanted organs not properly screened in the US as well. Everyone trying to make just a little more money. I say hang them by their private parts in a public place, cover them with honey and put a colony of fire ants on them.

Sorry for not having a strong opinion on this subject.

Darkstrike · #13 03-06-2008, 12:17 PM

I thought this thread read "Reusing Strings," I was thinkin' Hey that's not bad!

I was suprised, horribly, horribly suprised.

10k wouldn't even begin to make ammends, its an insult really.

Geoff St. Germaine · #14 03-06-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peterbright

If you read the article, you would notice a very large misstatement about HIV "lying dormant" for many years. It can be detected soon after infection by testing for the virus itself (as they do on blood donations) or within 3 months if testing for antibodies to HIV (takes time for the infected individual's body to produce antibodies in sufficient quantity to be detected using standard screening tests). This time period is called the window period & is not a period of latentcy. It takes someone infected with HIV a considerable time to end up with a destroyed immune system (9 - 11 years without treatment), but they are infectious and will test positive soon after infection.

What were these idiots thinking? We've had some transplanted organs not properly screened in the US as well. Everyone trying to make just a little more money. I say hang them by their private parts in a public place, cover them with honey and put a colony of fire ants on them.

Sorry for not having a strong opinion on this subject.

I'm not an expert, but a person I know was sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant. This person had to be tested for HIV every 6 months for 18 months before the doctor would say that the person did not have HIV. The reason given was that you may not test positive immediately.

warwick.hoy · #15 03-06-2008, 03:43 PM

And just another reason not to go to a doctor. What a rip, Good job ruining peoples' lives to make a buck.

SirCanealot · #16 03-06-2008, 03:51 PM

Does it suprise me? No.

This is the world we live in.

Reminds me of that kid in America who died a while ago since he couldn't get treatment for the abcess in one of his teeth (couldn't afford it). Sums it up pretty well with "Welcome to America".

Right now in the UK we have a National Health Service, but I can see us going the same way as Ameirca sooner or later -_-

FL Knifemaker · #17 03-06-2008, 03:55 PM

Wait until they try socialized healthcare here, I'll be happy to just get a dirty needle

Bryan316 · #18 03-06-2008, 04:25 PM

I just told my brother about this story. He's in the research labs downtown. He said, "That's a lifetime of testing for every person who went to that clinic. That's instant revocation of all licenses, and shutting down that whole clinic."

peterbright · #19 03-06-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff St. Germaine

I'm not an expert, but a person I know was sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant. This person had to be tested for HIV every 6 months for 18 months before the doctor would say that the person did not have HIV. The reason given was that you may not test positive immediately.

First...I am an HIV expert. Multiple tests in that situation are done for a positive psychological effect. We commonly do that with rape victims. Usually takes 3 negative tests before the person assaulted "believes" they are negative. The actual recommendation after a rape is an immediate test (base line to see if the person is already infected) and then every 3 months for a year. I would continue testing after that if the negative tests have not had the desired psychological effect.

If a physician actually told a rape victim what you report, it would tend to further traumatize the victim. Most physicians are not HIV experts. I teach physicians, nurses, social workers, case managers etc about HIV as part of my duties as the Director of Programs at an AIDS Service Organization. Been there more than 17 years, have both a MSPH & PhD in public Health with a major in HIV/AIDS Epidemiology (Also trained as an RN & LPN) and health care provider's ignorance on this subject would make you vomit.