My stepfather went to a Red Cross blood drive today and has this response to the problems he encountered there:
To whom it may concern,
Today I went to a Red Cross Blood drive here in Williamsburg.It had been a while since my last donation. I’ve been A VIP donor in the past for the Penn-Jersey region as well as a frequent donor while I was in the military. I was rejected because I served more than 3 months in Germany (Actually it was 2 1/2 years). I was told it was a recent ruling because of “Mad Cow Disease”. I was at first shocked, but quickly shock turned into insulted. I have been donating blood since I was in High School an up till I moved to Virginia in 2000. I think since I left Germany in '85, I may have felt the effects of “Mad Cow” by now. To date I have donated 77 times and was looking forward to earning my 10 gallon pin in the near future. I feel that this ruling insults the men and women of the military who have served and who are still serving this great country of ours. I hope that some one there at the Red Cross gets a clue and rectifies this situation and does it very soon!
I have to agree that this is more than a little stupid. This rejection is apparently happening to vets who served in Europe for more than 3 months from 1980’s til now…anyone has more info? If so, please reply.
I’m on the fence as to whether this is “more than a little stupid”. I’ll reply with what I know, and also call for some Dopers in the know (Curious Canuck? You out there?) to reply with their specific knowledge of blood collection rules and regulations.
It is as yet unproven, to my knowledge, whether Creutzfeld-Jacob disease can be transmitted through blood. The American Red Cross, feeling that the safety of the blood supply is paramount, has chosen to minimize the risk by refusing to accept blood from people who have spent 3 months or more in certain Western European countries since 1980.
Further research may prove that there is no blood-borne risk, and then the Red Cross would remove that criterion from their list, and your stepfather would be free to donate again.
I am sympathetic to your stepfather’s position, but I think that his military service overseas is beside the point. Had he been a tourist for a total of 12 weeks spread over the last 23 years, he would still be refused. I’ve spent about seven weeks in Europe over the past few years, and know that if I spend a little more than another month over there, then the Red Cross will not want any more of my blood.
If he still wishes to help out, the Red Cross can always use donations of time and money, as well as blood.
Well, considering how many thousands of people got HIV and Hepatitis C from tainted blood before enough was learned about the diseases to properly screen for those infections, I cannot fault them for being overcautious.
It’s hard for the Red Cross to win. They must ensure a safe blood supply by facilitating as many qualified people to donate as possible without offending those would-be donors they disallow. They must also convince the blood-product requiring population that said supply is carefully screened and safe, and will be acceptable for use in themselves or their loved ones. And they have to be prepared to defend themselves against all bad outcomes, even when they arise from new disease not yet even screened for.
I last donated 2 months ago. I spent a long time on their “no thank you” list because I took care of dialysis patients, but now I’m ok by their current standards. So just wait. The criteria will change, as we all learn more.
Artemis, I can’t argue with you there. Thanks for the links. I think my stepfather was just upset because this regulation was a new one on him. He felt that it would offend other vets who had served in Europe, but he probably didn’t think it all the way through. Thanks, guys!
It’s always upsetting to go to the blood bank planning to do a good deed, and be told you can’t donate. And at first, people who are deferred often feel it’s a judgement of their worth - “we don’t want your blood; you’re not good enough, you’re dirty.” But deferral isn’t intended to be a personal judgement - it’s simply a necessary precaution to safeguard the blood supply. And in the wake of all the transfusion-associated cases of HIV and Hepatitis C that occured in the 1980s, the FDA is now being extra-cautious.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this particular deferral recommendation is relaxed in the future, as more becomes known about the biology of nvCreutzfeldt-Jacob disease and the relative risk of infection for people living in different European countries becomes clearer. Your grandfather may one day be able to donate again, LadySybil. It’s worthwhile to keep checking the FDA guidelines every year or so to see if the restriction has been modified or lifted entirely.