TSA Confiscates Pregnant Woman's Insulin, Ice Packs
#196
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,396
Possibility two: in the process of inspecting the passenger's bags, one or more vials of insulin were removed but never returned to her bags (either by the passenger or the TSOs involved). The items were then accidentally abandoned at the checkpoint ... and, being probably unlabeled, there was no way for TSA to return them to her in a timely fashion.
What actually happened? Who knows ...
What actually happened? Who knows ...
#197
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,396
I used to carry a liquid medicine though the checkpoints. The outer box had the prescription label on it that said it was mine and had the dosage information. However, there were two layers of inner packaging, neither of which carried anything that would tie it to me and I don't believe even carried an expiration date. I would normally have a partially-used second-level package somewhere else other than in the main box.
#198
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,077
The TSA would know it was insulin. That doesn't tell them whose.
I used to carry a liquid medicine though the checkpoints. The outer box had the prescription label on it that said it was mine and had the dosage information. However, there were two layers of inner packaging, neither of which carried anything that would tie it to me and I don't believe even carried an expiration date. I would normally have a partially-used second-level package somewhere else other than in the main box.
I used to carry a liquid medicine though the checkpoints. The outer box had the prescription label on it that said it was mine and had the dosage information. However, there were two layers of inner packaging, neither of which carried anything that would tie it to me and I don't believe even carried an expiration date. I would normally have a partially-used second-level package somewhere else other than in the main box.
That might be true.
The lady either had or did not have insulin.
If she did not have insulin then the report was false from the beginning.
If she had insulin then it went missing during/after TSA screening or she had it all along.
The missing insulin should have been turned in as missing property or may have ended up in some persons pocket.
#200
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,629
I do have the slightest sympathy for TSA here.
IF someone at TSA really wants to improve the agency, one of the biggest hurdles is going to be the reputation the agency has painstakingly built over the last decade, much of it by design.
From the beginning, the agency wanted to come across as quasi-military. Bark orders, brook no exceptions, punitive actions that were vaguely reminiscent of 'drop and give me 50' penalties in boot camp. Over time, the agency has taken an increasingly adversarial approach to pax.
Part of this approach has been to lie or distort the truth in TSA's favor at every turn. One of the most egregious examples was Blogdad Bob's lie about Phil Mocek's alleged 'guilt'.
Unfortunately, things are never as black-and-white as TSA generally paints it. The organization has a big credibility problem, so it's hardly surprising 10 years on if some folks (those who have been on the receiving end of TSA's actions) incline towards giving pax the benefit of a doubt when the situation is not clear.
Why not? TSA never gives the pax the benefit of a doubt.
Too bad for everyone - for pax and for the 'good apple' TSOs.
IF someone at TSA really wants to improve the agency, one of the biggest hurdles is going to be the reputation the agency has painstakingly built over the last decade, much of it by design.
From the beginning, the agency wanted to come across as quasi-military. Bark orders, brook no exceptions, punitive actions that were vaguely reminiscent of 'drop and give me 50' penalties in boot camp. Over time, the agency has taken an increasingly adversarial approach to pax.
Part of this approach has been to lie or distort the truth in TSA's favor at every turn. One of the most egregious examples was Blogdad Bob's lie about Phil Mocek's alleged 'guilt'.
Unfortunately, things are never as black-and-white as TSA generally paints it. The organization has a big credibility problem, so it's hardly surprising 10 years on if some folks (those who have been on the receiving end of TSA's actions) incline towards giving pax the benefit of a doubt when the situation is not clear.
Why not? TSA never gives the pax the benefit of a doubt.
Too bad for everyone - for pax and for the 'good apple' TSOs.
#201
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,077
Seems we have been told that TSA policy requires turning property over for accounting purposes.
I would hate to think TSA is just tossing medicines in the garbage. Insulin is deadly if used improperly.
Besides, the TSA employees have been interviewed and they say there was no insulin.
Takes us back to either she is not being truthful or the TSA employees are not being truthful.
I would hate to think TSA is just tossing medicines in the garbage. Insulin is deadly if used improperly.
Besides, the TSA employees have been interviewed and they say there was no insulin.
Takes us back to either she is not being truthful or the TSA employees are not being truthful.
#202
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,629
#203
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,643
I do have the slightest sympathy for TSA here.
IF someone at TSA really wants to improve the agency, one of the biggest hurdles is going to be the reputation the agency has painstakingly built over the last decade, much of it by design.
From the beginning, the agency wanted to come across as quasi-military. Bark orders, brook no exceptions, punitive actions that were vaguely reminiscent of 'drop and give me 50' penalties in boot camp. Over time, the agency has taken an increasingly adversarial approach to pax.
Part of this approach has been to lie or distort the truth in TSA's favor at every turn. One of the most egregious examples was Blogdad Bob's lie about Phil Mocek's alleged 'guilt'.
Unfortunately, things are never as black-and-white as TSA generally paints it. The organization has a big credibility problem, so it's hardly surprising 10 years on if some folks (those who have been on the receiving end of TSA's actions) incline towards giving pax the benefit of a doubt when the situation is not clear.
Why not? TSA never gives the pax the benefit of a doubt.
Too bad for everyone - for pax and for the 'good apple' TSOs.
IF someone at TSA really wants to improve the agency, one of the biggest hurdles is going to be the reputation the agency has painstakingly built over the last decade, much of it by design.
From the beginning, the agency wanted to come across as quasi-military. Bark orders, brook no exceptions, punitive actions that were vaguely reminiscent of 'drop and give me 50' penalties in boot camp. Over time, the agency has taken an increasingly adversarial approach to pax.
Part of this approach has been to lie or distort the truth in TSA's favor at every turn. One of the most egregious examples was Blogdad Bob's lie about Phil Mocek's alleged 'guilt'.
Unfortunately, things are never as black-and-white as TSA generally paints it. The organization has a big credibility problem, so it's hardly surprising 10 years on if some folks (those who have been on the receiving end of TSA's actions) incline towards giving pax the benefit of a doubt when the situation is not clear.
Why not? TSA never gives the pax the benefit of a doubt.
Too bad for everyone - for pax and for the 'good apple' TSOs.
Over the past few months, I've made a conscious decision that I will try and view this forum as objectively as possible. And it's still very difficult to do. I've seen enough from the organization over the past decade that I am almost always going to give the passenger or the story the benefit of the doubt, unless it's so outrageous that it couldn't possibly be true.
And on that note, if there is someone who wants to improve the reputation of the agency, they have to start right now. You point out correctly that it will take a long time to do. So there's no time like the present to get started.
Mike
#204
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
It's unclear from the reports I've seen here as to when, exactly, it was determined that insulin was missing. If it was hours later, finding it might not have been possible.
#205
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 41,982
Bob is having a tough time defending this case over in PV; he is standing by the "she lied" premise, but it doesn't appear that many are taking that bait. Some very interesting comments about ice there, too.
#206
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Programs: none, I don't have money to travel
Posts: 102
Insulin is expensive (I think Humulin runs ~$50/vial). If a screener took both the woman's ice packs and her insulin (but left a half-empty vial), then I think it is equally likely that the screener is either:
a) an idiot,
b) a diabetic, or
c) a friend/relative of a diabetic.
Actually, given the body condition of your typical screener, I might even bump choice B up a little bit in likelihood.
a) an idiot,
b) a diabetic, or
c) a friend/relative of a diabetic.
Actually, given the body condition of your typical screener, I might even bump choice B up a little bit in likelihood.
On the topic, my mom is a Type 1 fragile diabetic and absolutely needs insulin. What I don't get is why the TSO felt that they had to confiscate this person's insulin. Bottles are clearly marked as to what they are such as Humalog and it is clearly indicated what they are used for.
#207
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sunny SoCal
Programs: AA, DL, UA, IHG, HHonors
Posts: 224
Strange story
#208
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,077
I would just go with A. I don't think that another diabetic would use insulin that isn't theirs as each insulin is probably different and each diabetic has a different response to it. I know I'm probably not making any sense right now as it is 1 am here and I have brain fog.
On the topic, my mom is a Type 1 fragile diabetic and absolutely needs insulin. What I don't get is why the TSO felt that they had to confiscate this person's insulin. Bottles are clearly marked as to what they are such as Humalog and it is clearly indicated what they are used for.
On the topic, my mom is a Type 1 fragile diabetic and absolutely needs insulin. What I don't get is why the TSO felt that they had to confiscate this person's insulin. Bottles are clearly marked as to what they are such as Humalog and it is clearly indicated what they are used for.
#209
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Possibility one: the passenger was mistaken about how many vials she had originally packed. After a stressful encounter at a TSA checkpoint, she gets to her destination, discovers she doesn't have the insulin she thought she had packed, and erroneously concludes that it had been taken by TSA.
Possibility two: in the process of inspecting the passenger's bags, one or more vials of insulin were removed but never returned to her bags (either by the passenger or the TSOs involved). The items were then accidentally abandoned at the checkpoint ... and, being probably unlabeled, there was no way for TSA to return them to her in a timely fashion.
Possibility two: in the process of inspecting the passenger's bags, one or more vials of insulin were removed but never returned to her bags (either by the passenger or the TSOs involved). The items were then accidentally abandoned at the checkpoint ... and, being probably unlabeled, there was no way for TSA to return them to her in a timely fashion.
#210
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
I do have the slightest sympathy for TSA here.
IF someone at TSA really wants to improve the agency, one of the biggest hurdles is going to be the reputation the agency has painstakingly built over the last decade, much of it by design.
From the beginning, the agency wanted to come across as quasi-military. Bark orders, brook no exceptions, punitive actions that were vaguely reminiscent of 'drop and give me 50' penalties in boot camp. Over time, the agency has taken an increasingly adversarial approach to pax.
Part of this approach has been to lie or distort the truth in TSA's favor at every turn. One of the most egregious examples was Blogdad Bob's lie about Phil Mocek's alleged 'guilt'.
Unfortunately, things are never as black-and-white as TSA generally paints it. The organization has a big credibility problem, so it's hardly surprising 10 years on if some folks (those who have been on the receiving end of TSA's actions) incline towards giving pax the benefit of a doubt when the situation is not clear.
Why not? TSA never gives the pax the benefit of a doubt.
Too bad for everyone - for pax and for the 'good apple' TSOs.
IF someone at TSA really wants to improve the agency, one of the biggest hurdles is going to be the reputation the agency has painstakingly built over the last decade, much of it by design.
From the beginning, the agency wanted to come across as quasi-military. Bark orders, brook no exceptions, punitive actions that were vaguely reminiscent of 'drop and give me 50' penalties in boot camp. Over time, the agency has taken an increasingly adversarial approach to pax.
Part of this approach has been to lie or distort the truth in TSA's favor at every turn. One of the most egregious examples was Blogdad Bob's lie about Phil Mocek's alleged 'guilt'.
Unfortunately, things are never as black-and-white as TSA generally paints it. The organization has a big credibility problem, so it's hardly surprising 10 years on if some folks (those who have been on the receiving end of TSA's actions) incline towards giving pax the benefit of a doubt when the situation is not clear.
Why not? TSA never gives the pax the benefit of a doubt.
Too bad for everyone - for pax and for the 'good apple' TSOs.
This would be bad enough if we were just concerned with the public relations ramifications. However; in my own case -and I suspect for many other frequent travelers as well- TSA is the last place I would turn if I saw something truly suspicious. They have constantly reinforced an image of combativeness and incompetence to the degree that, if I saw a person boarding a plane with a bomb in his hand, I would exhaust all other options before involving TSA. The true tragedy of TSA's bumbling is that they have alienated the largest potential anti-terrorism resource the nation has - its citizenry. Good for us that the threat TSA supposedly guards against is effectively non-existent.