So as to not go through the hassle every time, you might ask some local Red Cross official for something on letterhead summarizing your time abroad and noting that you’ve been approved, and still are approved, to give blood.
Ok, here is when things start to get retarded.
If you’ve had HIV for 30 years and never knew about it, you’d be a superhero. Your blood would probably cure aids in anyone who touched it and carried a 50% chance of letting them fly. Marvel Comics would write you into their plotlines.
Ok, so society don’t need blood donors all that much. Doesn’t mean bureaucrats shouldn’t feel ashamed standing by sheer irrationality. Shit like this undermines faith in all rules and regulations.
You know, complaints like this undermine my faith in the rationality of humankind, and frankly, undermine my faith in those who challenge rules and regulations.
I’m not saying every official decision is perfect. Indeed many official decisions should be challenged.
But I can’t see why this is one of them. The Red Cross spends a lot of effort getting people to come to blood drives; they have a pretty good incentive to accept every one they can. On the other hand, they want to protect people who receive blood. So they have to make the decision on how to best ensure safety without ruling out too many donors. They’ve taken the wise choice of both testing blood and (since no test is perfect) eliminating donors from high risk groups. They have to define high risk groups with simple questions that anybody can understand; given the questions are going to be broad and simple, they’re not going to be perfect, so they’re going to err on the side of safety. They’ve developed the questions based on data from millions of donations and tests.
Now, if you think you can create a better set of questions to screen for high-risk groups, and make a convincing argument for them, go for it, and I bet the Red Cross would be interested. But “Your questions seem idiotic to me, so use these” isn’t really going to be a very convincing argument I’m afraid.
Now, if you are in fact trained in epidemiology and public surveys, and have used blood-testing data to develop a different set of questions that can be shown to be more protective or less restrictive for the same level of protection, then I apologize.
Sure, the questions sometimes eliminate a donor who is not really in a high risk group. I’ve been barred for a year two different times because of technicalities that didn’t really make me high risk, and it was frustrating. I’m pretty sure that I wasn’t really at risk, but then again I’m not an expert, and I am very sure that if everybody made their own call, someone would screw up. We’re all better off if we let the people at the Red Cross who think about this stuff all day, and have access to real data, make decisions about who donates, rather than trying to decide ourselves each time.
The UK became self-sufficient in blood supplies after contaminated blood from the US caused the deaths of thousands of hemophiliacs.
Well, I’m happily gay and I’ve had sex since 1977 (my birth year) with men. I donate.
I have the rarest blood type in the world and several very sought out vaccines coursing through my veins. That I’m gay and have had sex with men since 1977 doesn’t in itself make me a bad candidate. Indeed, I haven’t had sex with a man (or anyone else for that matter) in a couple of years. I have no diseases. Since I’m not sexually active, and don’t use IV drugs or have any other peculiarities makes me a complete non-risk. But I guess if it’s a policy written down by smart people, then it’s justified that because I’ve had sex with a gay man since 1977 I shouldn’t be allowed to donate irrespective of the fact that many heterosexuals have a substantially higher risk than do I (which is essentially 0). How excluding me with my rare blood type and hep vaccines serves the public makes no sense.
So do you explain all to this to them and get a waiver, or do you lie?
Yes.
Fight the power!
How does your link have anything to do with my question?
They answered your question, saying that all UK blood needs are met by UK donors, a change that was made after the UK’s previous inability to meet its own needs led to problems with a contaminated supply brought in from outside the country. The link was documenting the contamination that influenced the change in policy. I’m not sure what you’re confused about here.
…because I never asked about the UK getting blood from *other *places. I asked specifically, if there is a risk of mad cow disease from UK donors, then how do those in the UK donate. CutterJohn asked exactly the same thing.
And I answered you, I thought.
Mean they (UK residents) donate blood for use in the UK and that it carries a higher risk of CJD transmission.
… They get all their blood from people in the UK. If you want to know if there are further categories created in the UK to determine who is and isn’t allowed to contribute to their particular pool, you should have asked that. The poster answered your question as it was asked.
From Wikipedia:
So yes, they’re scared of their own blood too.
To clarify: they’re scared of some sort of runaway chain-reaction that would take years for anyone to realize is going on. However, it’s partly based on the theory that CJD can lay dormant for decades, which noone has proved. The current rate of CJD infection is literally one in a million. So far there’s been one case of anyone getting CJD via transfusion.
It all makes for a great sci-fi plot, and may be worth rejecting donors over. In any case, it makes a smidgeon more sense than the hysteria surrounding men who’ve sucked dick once in 1978.