The Cellar - Are blood donation questions reasonable?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Health (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=33)

- - Are blood donation questions reasonable? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14277)

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

Quote:

In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America's Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.

In a document posted Wednesday, the FDA said it would change its policy if given data that show doing so wouldn't pose a "significant and preventable" risk to blood recipients.

"It is a way of saying, 'Whatever was presented to us was not sufficient to make us change our minds,'" Bianco said.

The FDA said HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect the virus 100 percent of the time. The estimated HIV risk from a unit of blood is currently about one per 2 million in the United States, according to the agency.

Critics of the exclusionary policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays. The FDA recognized the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it's discriminatory.

Anyone who's used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs (Post 346830)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 346917)

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

Quote:

The Platelet Donation Process

A cuff is placed around your arm, the skin cleaned, local anaesthetic may be injected and the donation needle inserted. Depending on the type of machine used a needle may be put in both arms. Blood samples are taken at this stage for testing in the same way as whole blood donations. Additional tests carried out for platelet donors are to check your general state of health, in particular, to check your platelet count and to determine your tissue type (so that your platelets can be matched to those of a particular patient if needed).

During the procedure, blood is withdrawn, mixed with anticoagulant to prevent clotting and processed by spinning to separate the platelets. The rest of the blood is returned to you, which is why it is safe for you to donate at a much higher frequency than whole blood (as often as every 2 weeks!).

During the procedure, any white cells that remain in your platelet donation are also removed as these could cause problems in a patient despite being harmless to you.

All the tubing that blood comes into contact with is sterile and disposable. There is, therefore, no risk of ‘catching’ any infection. Also, during the return of your blood, air detectors ensure that none of the sterile air present in the collection gets passed into your vein. If a detector identifies air, the machine will automatically shut down and can only be restarted when the air has been removed.

While you are donating you will be monitored and cared for by qualified staff supervised by nurses. You can read, chat to the staff or relax and you will be offered refreshments. When the procedure is completed the needle(s) will be removed and a dressing applied to the venepuncture site(s).

Following the donation, which should take approximately 90 minutes, you will be able to take a well earned break in our rest area and enjoy some more refreshment if you wish.

If at any stage in the procedure you suffer discomfort and wish to discontinue a donation please inform the staff.

What are the potential side effects?

* As with whole blood donation, bruising or fainting can occur.
* Each time you donate, 30-40ml of blood is lost for sampling and in the tubing. Your blood will be tested at every visit to make sure you are not anaemic and to check your platelet count.
* To avoid clotting during the donation an anticoagulant is automatically added as your blood flows into the machine. A small proportion of this citrate solution is returned to you and mixed with your own red cells. Although it is immediately neutralised on return to you, occasionally it can cause a tingling sensation around the mouth and fingers, or a metallic taste or feeling of vibration.
This is not dangerous and provided you inform the staff supervising the donation, it is easily overcome by adjusting the machine settings.
* Very occasionally some donors remark that their arm feels cold when the red cells are returned but the majority of donors have no sensation of the blood being returned at all.
* As with all automated equipment, the cell separator machine may, occasionally not operate properly. But these machines have comprehensive fail safe devices to protect donors. If a machine does fail, one possibility is that the blood left in the machine will not be returned to you. The maximum you would lose in this event, is equivalent to half a blood donation and is therefore quite harmless. However you may have to wait for 2 months before you can donate platelets again due to the red cells lost.

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl (Post 347004)

...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..."