Chapter 2433: Don’t Lie
Moreover, asking a healthy person to donate a part of their body to others.
Medicine can’t guarantee 100%, which is reflected in much of the propaganda about donation focusing mostly on moral persuasion, while technical shortcomings are something to avoid discussing. The public can’t be deceived, which is the most frustrating point for all medical personnel regarding this promotional strategy. If you deceive the public by saying that doing this has no side effects, and they find out that’s not true, they’ll completely question everything you say and hate you for it.
The propaganda says that now bone marrow transplants don’t involve bone, but peripheral blood stem cells, which don’t hurt and have no risks. But in reality, every donor receives an informed consent form before really donating, listing various risks and asking you personally to bear the consequences. This outrages lots of previously registered volunteers, who were never told about this during the propaganda.
Why do medical personnel experience these things deeply? Because in the clinic, when explanations are insufficient, they often hear the public say you’ve deceived me and then hate you as the doctor.
Life is paramount; in the public’s mind, life comes first. How can you deceive people? You must know that saying less in the public’s perception is entirely misleading.
What’s the final outcome? Don’t just talk about domestically; the rate of regret donations abroad can reach over 50%. It makes this propaganda method seem like you’re trying to deceive one if you can deceiving one. It’s simply a self-digging, blackening strategy, and it’s prepared to go black all the way, without even knowing if the purpose is to encourage donation or discourage it.
Should donation be advocated or not? Definitely advocated. Many medical personnel are registered volunteers themselves, knowing that the risks of donation to one’s own safety are very low, and it can save lives, so why not do it? However, there’s an important premise: the donor must be a healthy person.
Medical research precisely studies healthy people donating to patients. It’s irresponsible to ask an unhealthy person to donate, as it is equally irresponsible to the patient.
If an unforeseen incident that people don’t want to see occurs, specific cases require scientific analysis. It’s unavoidable to encounter medical incidental events that fall into that unlucky 0.01%, so there’s an even greater need for voluntary principle. Another type of incident can be avoided, stemming from non-standard operations, which has a higher probability, and is the root cause of most cases where things go wrong.
Not understanding, such as last time Student Xie donated blood and got reprimanded by all the teachers. You can show kindness. But first, trouble yourself to take responsibility for yourself. If a donor’s incident causes serious consequences, once spread, it impacts the entire society’s trust and confidence in the donation endeavor.
For those who regret donating, those who don’t understand will curse. Anyone who understands the gravity of this, no medical personnel or donation center staff will curse. If you force someone to donate against their will, it’s akin to tying them up and using them as livestock; the societal aftermath of incidents post-donation would be even more destructive. Like last time with Ding Lulu, you can entice her to donate, but coercing her is not acceptable. If she hesitates and regrets not donating at the last minute, that must be respected.
Where does forceful donation usually occur? Family.
To what extent can family coercion to donate go? How many people in the same family can collectively coerce an individual to donate, or else face social death. Sympathetic to the weaker party must have limits; otherwise, it forms even more terrible oppression against another weak person.