Are blood donation questions reasonable?
 

After reading the following AP article i dont think they are. I dont think the lifetime ban on any risky behavior is reasonable. What are they trying to guard against? The tests are much more reliable than the questions, so why the questions? i actually know people who use the blood donation as a way to re-assure they are HIV free but thats stupid. You can get free tests at a clinic. Only responsible people are going to answer the questions properly anyway so all your doing is screening out responsible people. I think they should have a strongly worded notice that their tests are unreliable for during an initial incubation period for HIV and if you have done any of the following risky activities you need to get tested and wait 1 year.


gay men banned from donating blood

I've got issues with the Red Cross and their blood collection practices.

My issue is that they stopped taking my blood several years ago when they changed their policy to exclude those who have lived in Western Europe for a few months or longer. Europe!?

This is because of mad cow disease. Then mad cow disease was found in the US food supply. Did they ban US donations? Nope. Of course not.

I used to donate several times a year. Oh well. Their loss.

tattooed and pierced people run into this, too. We get to keep our blood. :(

You're allowed to donate blood over here if you're tattoed. I think you have to wait three months though.

Considering most countries are crying out for blood products, I think it's crazy to knock people back, however, if contaminated blood happens to get through the tests somehow, there are a lot of legal connotations.

They're just trying to safeguard the public.

Depends on the question. It would be tragic if you got a disease from a blood donation. It is also tragic if you do not get blood because of overstrict regulations. Once again, it comes to balance.

Over here you can't donate if you've had penetrative sex with another man, but it doesn't ask women if they've ever had anal sex. Always thought that was a little skewed. Lifetime ban for gay sex, intravenous drug use or sex workers.

Pierced and tattooed people can give (after a set time - 3 months I think, like Oz), although many people believe they are also banned for this reason,

If anyone in the above groups was willing to challenge it in the UK I'd be right behind them. I am always trying to push people into giving blood ("Yes, I hate needles too, I cry every time I give blood from the sheer revulsion of feeling the tube on my arm" etc etc) and am usually met with apathy. It would be a refreshing change to hear someone is fighting in order to do so. I can only assume the time and money spent in extra testing don't make the additional amount of blood viable though.

The gay-rights activist and general shit-stirrer in me TOTALLY wants to do something about this...

...but the needlephobe in me figures its fine.

They love me when I give blood...my vein is giant.

I've never thought giving blood hurts anything like a shot of something. The blood thing is more like a tube,and I don't think it hurts. Needles, however, ouch.

I donate religiously, and those vampires call me every 8 weeks - it's like clockwork! For as much as they need the donations, I can see how their ultimate concern is the public health. And, unfortunately, the whole thing is because of (a) residual influences from the Gay '80s scare tactics regarding gays/sex; and (b) it is a fact that those who engage in anal intercourse - gender indifferent - have a higher risk of contracting disease due the anal cavity's lack of elasticity as compared to say, a vagina.

As detection improves, so will the policies of the vampires.

I used to donate blood 2- times per year. Then when I had to start answering "YES" to that question about having male to male sex, I was denied.
Does a person bleeding to death really care who I fuck and how?

http://ganjataz.com/01smileys/images...yRomanJury.gif

well... I might take a little funk from a transfusion if it meant I wasn't going to bleed out...

I probably lack the medical expertise to comment.... all I know is that I've been donating blood for maybe 20 years (though not as religiously as smurf--I only recently passed the 2 gallon mark). And the list of questions and prohibited factors just keeps getting longer and longer and longer. (Mrs. Dallas is disqualified because of a positive hepatitis test, in conjunction with a case of mono when she was a teenager.) Common sense suggests that each additional prohibition will eliminate some number of donors. How long will it be before the population of available donors is just too small?

It seems to me like it would be more sensible to just take the blood and then make sure it's thoroughly tested--and eliminate specific individuals from the donor pool if there is any reason their blood in unsuitable for donation. I mean, they keep complaining about shortages, while at the same time they're introducing what seem to me--again, as a layman--to be pickier and pickier restrictions.

How long is donated blood good for? I mean, it "spoils" at some point, right?

I know in the UK it is usually separated down into its component parts. The plasma at least can be frozen, not sure about the rest of it.

Last time I was there I read a leaflet about donating platelets

I feel a strange kind of guilt for not signing up to it, because the only reason not to is that it will revolt me even more than normal donation. Therefore I now feel morally obliged to do it simply by my own cowardice, and just giving blood seems a cop out. Don't ask, it's screwed up. I'll look into it when I move (ah sweet, sweet procrastination).

It's not screwed up, I feel exactly the same way. You see, when I go in to donate, I'm in and out in under 10 minutes, sitting directly across from the big platelet machine, while the folk who choose to make the platelet donation are there for a couple of hours.

It's the feeling that you could do more, but aren't. I rationalize it away by thinking that it's ok to take 20 minutes off work, but much less ok to take two hours. It's still not a strong argument.

A couple of years ago, after our overseas trip, my first donation back was subject to a "Blood Recall". I'd made it clear that I'd been to Egypt on the form, and on my second donation 3 months later, the nurse freaked out, saying that Egypt was a malaria listed country and that I must have lied at my previous donation. Frantic phone calls followed, during which the nurse made me think I'd have been better taking a dump in the bag and giving them that instead. Interestingly, they still accepted my donation. I've been much less eager to donate since then.

...and a "Blood Recall" WTF?
"um, 'scuse me Mr Smith, remember that blood we gave you three months ago? Well, you see, we need it back. It mightn't have been any good..."

Beest and I donated regularly in the UK. Our blood is not welcome here in the US because of the mad cow thing. It sucks. I had lots of transfusions after our second child was born. I owe, but am unable to repay my debt :(

My wife has tats and gives blood twice a year in the US. No problems.

I haven't given for a few years, mostly due to other health concerns. I was accustomed to giving regularly, about every six weeks I think, in a corporate sponsored blood drive. That just made it easier to give. It was one of the few things I did to actually take a break from work.

I was started on a medication for anxiety so that I would sleep better. The med had originally been used as an anti-seizure med. Blood bank people had a hissyfit over it and refused my donation. The only reason my med was on the list was because of potential hazard to someone who was liable to have a seizure. Not good for the donor, not good for the blood drive, etc. It has little effect in such tiny amounts for the person receiving the blood.

The blood drive people told me to come back in six months because they expected to be allowed to take my blood as long as I was not prone to having seizures. Six months later, and I was shunted off into a waiting area while they took fortyfive minutes to determine that they couldn't take my blood again. Do you know what it's like to have everyone in line wondering why you are segregated from the rest? Or why your blood is being rejected? I wasn't embarassed, but it sure did inconvenience me greatly. I had to make up the time and the interruption of my work was costly, too.

So a year later, I returned and was rejected because I didn't weigh enough. Then a year later still, because my blood pressure was too low...

My O neg blood is still highly sought after, and I have desirable titers of some antivirals that blood banks want for people at risk, but now the type of health care I do limits the desirablity of my blood.

I've given up for a while. I figure when I'm somewhere that is convenient for me I will give. We used to see blood drive vehicles outside of conventions and special events. Maybe...

I wonder if one can be denied if one has had sex with their bi x boyfriend?

I could bite your neck if it would help.
I was rejected for being allergic to penicillin, but when I found out they had OJ and no beer, I didn't care.

Clod - the blood does expire, I believe it is like 8 days for the red blood cells or something. That is why there seems to always be a shortage. The Frozen products expire as well, I just think it takes a little longer, but not much.

As for tattoos in the US - there is a year waiting period for fear of the diseases you can get from the needles. After that, you should be home free.

Also keep in mind that all blood banks are overseen by the FDA and it may be them enforcing the procedure of questionnaires. And they will quickly kick a blood bank's ass if they aren't following correct procedures.

My thinking on it is that if they sort out the high-risk people first, then they have more time to focus on the potentially healthy blood. At the end of the day, the number of units is important, but if a number of them are unusable, all the man hours and supplies that were used to collect and test them were wasted. I am not saying that they are right in their practices, just that I can see it from another point of view.
And yes, people can lie about the answers and the time is still wasted. There was also a number that people can call to say they lied if they wanted to tell, but not face to face.

(No, I don't nor have I ever worked for the Red Cross......just another blood bank. And I am also not saying that I agree with everything either)

another point I just thought of...

I don't know just how accurate this course of action is, but I do know of several people who actually try to give blood solely to determine HIV status, cholesterol level, etc.

I'm sure it gets terribly expensive for blood banks to waster resources taking/testing/disposing of diseased blood.

YES!! I know someone that mentioned doing that and i think it happens a lot. Thats horribly ignorant and stupid. Go to the free clinic. You are endangering people. Thats why i think those questions are pointless. Compare that to them eliminating someone for answering truthfully to traveling to england or for ever having had gay sex even if you are practicing safe sex or monogamous. Thats got to eliminate a lot of people for no good reason. Thats why i say just make it a year waiting period for any risky behavior and be done with it.

Depends on the type of blood. Frozen packed cells can be kept for up to ten years, most is not, but it can be. FFP (plasma) for a year. Whole blood can be kept a long time as well but many important factors degrade over a short time, which is why whole blood is spun down and various components are removed for specific use.

Everything you always wanted to know about blood product administration but were afraid to ask:
http://www.aabb.org/Documents/About_...on/coi0702.pdf