And this is why I have mixed feelings. People talk about how they’re not skanks, and how they practice safe sex - and a lot of us do; odds of me catching HIV are probably way lower than the general population, given that I don’t have all that much sex and practice safer sex when I do. But even so, on an aggregate basis, MSMs are more likely to have HIV than straight men. Asking for a more detailed sexual history might frighten off donors, or it might encourage more people to lie. It’s impossible for me to guess, but it’s possible that trying for a more “rational” approach might hurt either the safety of the blood supply or the quantity of donations. And it’s important to remember than even NAT testing isn’t perfect; my understanding is that people still occasionally get infected with HIV from the blood supply. If the questions they ask are able to remove a substantial number of HIV positive people from the blood donation pool proportional to the number of clean donations they’re using, then it may be a rational step.
On the other hand, I don’t have the numbers, and a lot of these things are seriously hard to quantify. And homophobia is still rampant in this society; it’s a tad foolish (or perhaps it’s the sign of an ideologue) to imagine that it couldn’t possibly have been part of the motivation for the decision. Judging by the FDA committee’s vote, it’s hardly an issue that’s crystal clear.
It may well be, statistically speaking, a perfectly rational decision. Or it may not be. I don’t have enough information to evaluate it, and the FDA has something of a history of late of acting on a political basis rather than a scientific one.
The bloodmobile was at my workplace YESTERDAY… and I didn’t donate.
They were giving away tee-shirts…and I didn’t donate
Our company had a drawing for gift-cards to some places that I shop…and I didn’t donate.
We found out three weeks ago that the bloodmobile would be here… and I didn’t donate.
Yep… I donated some FIVE weeks ago and thus I was ineligible.
But when I asked if I could be included in the draw, I was told “no… because you’re not donating here.”
Well, that’s a fine how-do-you-do (from our HR department… not the bloodbank) for a LOYAL donor… who goes every two months (or thereabouts) to donate.
I did point out to them that the last time I donated blood, it was the 144th time I’d done so. That’s right …
[brag] GRIZZ HAS DONATED EIGHTEEN GALLONS!![/brag]
As other people have said, the FDA makes those rules, not the blood banks. That’s why it is universal across the US.
bolding mine
As What Exit? said:
Also, testing and storing and transporting the blood, and the salaries of those who do those tasks. I work for a not-for-profit blood bank- I assume that all blood banks operate that way, and wouldn’t work for one (or donate to) one that didn’t.
I was told it was because it was an especially honkin’ needle, but someone else may have a better answer.
That kind of donation doesn’t go for patient use, if you care. It is used for research or cosmetics. Paid for blood or blood products cannot be used for patient transfusion.
97% of the blood we collect is used.
Should be true, double-check it’s true with your local blood bank.
I work with a caring group of phlebotomists, most trained by the blood bank I work for, that go out and draw donors daily, and do a better job than a lot of RN’s that come in and see us. We get complimented often by medical workers that we draw, because drawing blood is what we do. We have to be accurate! We is good people, so come give blood in Colorado!
If you sometimes donate, but can’t make it every eight weeks, see if your center will do Alyx donations (aside - Wikipedia has an entry for Alyx, the character in Half Life, but not Alyx the blood centrifuge thingy).
They take a pint of fluid, like always, but double the amount of red blood cells they take - making your donation almost as useful as two donations.
It’s just one stick, and takes maybe 5 minutes longer than a whole blood donation. It’s not some two-hour, two-arm thing like platelet donation or anything.
You call yourself extremely needle-phobic, and you can write that paragraph? shudders
Now, THAT’S needle-phobic! I haven’t been stuck with a needle in the past twenty years without having several nights filled with nightmares beforehand and becoming violently ill afterward. I’ve delayed a career change due to the necessity to get an injection; I’ve seriously considered not travelng to foreign countries due to the need to get an injection. I’ve got a strong stomach regarding other matters, but when folks start swapping needle-stories, I leave the room, literally.
I know that there are some people out there who are made mildly queasy by the needlestick: for them, giving blood isn’t a big deal, whereas for me, it’s damn near inconceivable. If there’s something I can do instead, I’ll do that; if they can punch me in the nose and collect the blood, that’s fine by me.
I haven’t heard of any cases in the US where someone died in the past 20 years due to a shortage of blood, so claims that I need to give to prevent the shortage are specious.
We all do our part to keep society running. This is one part that I cannot psychologically do. I reject your criticism.
I agree. It is way overboard. But that’s what I was saying - the blood gathering groups I know of are extremely paranoid. I’ve known blood drives to be cancelled for less. I guess it depends on the group.
As for plasma, that’s a different story, because it gets processed into other blood products. The processing would destroy anything dangerous, so they don’t need to worry so much about keeping their supply clean.
I never said it didn’t happen, just that I was mildly surprised to hear it, because in my mind it would fall into the category of compensation. Obviously, at least some groups involved in making the decision disagree with me. I have no problem with that, as I expect they know more about it than I do.
I was told - five years for blood at all, then after five years, you tell them and they take all but the red blood cells. Now when you go on their website they break it down by individual medicine. I didn’t read it too closely, as I don’t have to worry either way (it’s been 15 years).
There’s this case which I just read about this week (see second page):
Yes, part of this man’s problem was that he was in a tough situation for getting a liver, but clearly if there had been enough of that type of rare blood, he would have had his transplant in time. The way you get rare blood types is by getting sheer numbers of people in so you can find enough special donors.
Severe blood shortages are not uncommon - I found one reference from last year to having to ration out blood between hospitals, having only one day’s projected supply of blood available (which would create tremendous problems if there was some horrible accident/disaster), having to postpone non-emergency transfusions and non-emergency surgeries, and so forth. It’s not death but I’d classify that as more than a nuisance. A report in the New England Journal of Medicine even suggested that we might need to import blood from abroad to meet our needs.
I’m sorry you’re phobic and defensive, but that’s no reason to brush off the need for donors. Blood is a very time-sensitive item (5 days for platelets, 42 for red blood cells), and the need is constant.
It’s interesting to know that there are shortages occasionally. Nonetheless, I’m not going to give blood, and I’m going to reject criticism of me for that decision; if you see that as defensive, have fun.
Frankly, I sympathise. I know of another gay donor who only wishes he could hand over his liquid-gold O negative. But as I say, the US would rate me a thorough-going Typhoid Mary just for being English - I don’t think they make any exceptions for vegans; I could be wrong - but the last thing I’d do would be to go around encouraging people to boycott them.
All Rh- stuff is rare-ish; you’re talking a few percent of the population. (I once had an A- girlfriend so we’d have been useless to each other; I’d’ve abhorred her A antigens and she’d’ve been sickened by my Rhesus factor.) If someone’ll take it, go for it. It’s not a lifesaver the way O- is but it could eke out the precious O- a bit further.
It also turns out that the difference between fresh blood and “old blood” (31-42 days after donation, 42 days is the max life for red blood cells) can mean life or death for some heart patients.
I’ll also add here that I don’t begrudge anyone who’s phobic or otherwise ineligible - between problems just finding a vein in me to get a regular smallish needle in for a blood draw (never mind a large one for donation), medication conflicts, and frequent colds, I certainly can’t defend myself. I’m just saying that yes, we really do need lots of blood donations.
You sure have a way with words! Of course it’s the wrong way. I’m not going to stand on tiptoe waiting for your crude diatribe to be published on a Red Cross poster or as copy in a magazine ad, let alone as spoken commentary on a TV spot.
In 1970, L. A. Police Chief Tom Reddin spoke on local radio, in an editorial, deploring skid row drunks who sell their blood for something to drink–and God-knows-what is in their blood (in terms of diseases, etc.)
Many years ago, San Francisco columnist Herb Caen told about a cabbie whose passenger tried to stiff him for the fare.
When the cab reached the destination, the cabbie said, “That’ll be four dollars, buddy.”
“Oh, no, it won’t,” said the passenger. “I don’t have any money and you know, you can’t get blood out of a turnip.”
The cabbie snapped, “Well, you ain’t no turnip, and your blood is worth four dollars a pint.” So saying, the cabbie got a hammerlock on the deadbeat and hustled him into a local Red Cross center, and waited while they extracted the pint; then the cabbie collected.
I told this to a doctor I know; she deplored such chutzpah on the part of the cabbie–as if that stunt would get a Los Angeles-area cabbie arrested.
