Donation vital to others
Dear Editor,
This letter is written concerning Robert Prowse’s “Blood donation blunders” article. I find it unconscionable, for the sake of filling space and provoking a campuswide laugh, to write and publish a piece of work that casts a shadow on such a crucial component of health care.
Simply put, without blood donations, lives would be lost. The appeal to any altruistic nature that may exist in our student body is certainly not a large one – there are very few opportunities to spend an hour of your time and provide such a significant contribution to the greater good.
I have given blood many times in my life, as have my friends and family. To my knowledge, none of us have ever experienced anything like Prowse’s account. At the worst, giving blood is an inconvenience that takes an hour out of our generally self-consumed lives.
At its best, it is a chance to help out in a vital way. Of course, this is not nearly as interesting as the occasional bad experience. This is true for most things that we do or try that are generally positive; the negative exception is more worthy of excessive comment. But to publicize such an account and in such a graphic, one-sided manner is irresponsible.
If there had been some ideas added on how the Red Cross may improve the care of those who donate blood, then the reader could assign some constructive and beneficial attributes to the article. This was not the case. Prowse presented his commentary with innocuous regard, as if the article was about the much discussed and proportionately benign ramen noodle. The impact of the article, aside from a quasi-satirical contribution to the reader’s day, is to shift those potential first time donors who are understandably apprehensive back to the safe confines of inaction.
Donating blood provides a valuable service that, unlike noodles, has no relevant substitute. It also contributes to the donor; any giving and good-will feeds the soul, whatever set of beliefs you ascribe to. So hold the door for someone and smile at a stranger; and give blood.
Prowse’s experience of horror and excitement is the extremely rare exception, and should by no means influence the decisions of others. And the advertisements that he alluded to? I have seen them, and the style is similar to World War II recruitment posters. But are they indicative of questionable moral integrity?
Perception is relevant to the perceiver, in editorials and advertisements.
– Mark Estes

Author