There is a point at which you can add an anonomous bar coded sticker “yes, use my blood” or “no, don’t use my blood” This is to prevent embarrasment, especially in cases of “peer pressure” (office blood drives and the like)
And Cowgirl would have instantly been rejected. At my last attempt, I said that I had been to Mexico and had visited rural Mexico, (I should have thought that might be a problem)and the nurse immediately started calculating when my year was up so I could donate again. That was after she cut my CBS card in half.
Guess they’ll see me next October.
Cowgirl, read the article a little more closely:
The question is not “have you EVER had sex with someone whose sexual history you don’t know.” It specifically limits the period of time to twelve months. Obviously, they’re leaning towards people who aren’t having casual sex WITHIN THE PAST YEAR… not casual sex EVER. That’s very, very different from your assertion that
Your statement is simply false. Maybe you just didn’t read that editorial closely, but “Within the last twelve months” doesn’t mean “ever.” I think you will agree that there is a very substantial difference between the number of people who are promiscuous right now, and the number who have been promiscuous at any point in their lives.
I’m kind of scared by the idea that the blood supply isn’t 100% (or effectively so) safe. I was always under the impression that “people used to get HIV from blood transfusions, but now that never happens because we test all our blood, and only clean blood gets used.”
Is this not the case? If it’s not, then someone out there is propagating the lie that blood is 100% safe.
How can any test be 100% accurate?
I have a similar situation. I’m a repeat blood donor (approaching 1 gallon) with a lot of time logged on the other side of the pond.
The Red Cross doesn’t want me: more than six months, cumulative, in Europe since 1982. I discovered this when I tried to donate while out of town, visiting a friend. (I had an hour to kill.)
But the Sacramento Medical Foundation (www.bloodsource.org, my local “vampires”) has no problem with the six months, per se. I have a couple extra questions I have to answer (something about having been in a hospital, but nothing about my diet while in Europe), but they do let me donate. And then I get to eat the cookies.
My point: any chance the OP can find another taker for her blood? Are Canada’s hospitals supplied by more than one source of blood, as California’s are?
Quite so - the recipients of blood products should be able to make an informed choice, based on the assurance that the blood products have been screened as thoroughly as possible, and that the screening process has not been sabotaged by somebody intentionally lying about the potential risks that their blood carries.
This is a somewhat different situation, so take it as you will… I haven’t had the opportunity lately to donate blood, but I’m sure that with the on-campus blood drives, I’ll be approached in the near future. If this is the case, I plan to donate blood despite having had sex with another man in the past.
Any particular reason you feel the need to donate blood even though they don’t want you? If I’m an IV drug user would it be ok if I donated blood? It is ok to lie so long as I know I’m healthy, right?
Marc
- Yes. Because it could potentially save someone’s life.
- I don’t know about drugs. I don’t use them, I have very little knowledge, so I can’t form an opinion at this point.
I’m not exactly sure why you’d think it’s honorable to
A) perpetrate a fraud in the guise of help, and
B) do so against the wishes of people who probably know a lot more about blood-borne diseases than you do.
A) There is no guise; help is help is help.
B) Normally I might agree. When I last had lab bloodwork done, I asked my doctor if he knew of any reason why I would be unable to donate blood given my medical history and bloodwork tests. He suggested I donate.
**
Maybe some people would rather have blood screened by experts instead of you.
Did you ask him if there were any reasons based off your sexual history or any other criteria? Does it really matter what your doctor says since he isn’t the one responsible for ensuring the safety of the blood supply?
Another factor that hasn’t been brought up is the perception the public has about the safety of their blood supply. How will the public feel if they found out folks in high risk groups insist on donating blood? Would it discourage anyone from taking blood out of fear of catching something?
Marc
As long as you’re willing to take responsibility if the blood bank finds out about your little deception and has to recall its supplies from hospitals etc. See this thread for a discussion of a Canadian case where the blood agency sued to recover all of its costs of a recall in such a case, from a donor who had intentionally lied and donated blood,
And, you may want to consider this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Walker Estate v. York Finch General Hospital, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 647, in which a fellow donated blood without worrying about AIDS, because he “felt healthy.” Of course, that was in the early years, so he didn’t appreciate that he could be carrying the virus while “feeling healthy”. Course, that’s not much consolation to the victims who died from his “help.”
Bottom line: donating blood does not put the donor at risk.
Receiving blood is potentially risky for the donee.
What gives you the right to override the medical requirements of the blood system, potentially putting other people at risk, just to feel warm and fuzzy inside?
If I was involved in a life-threatening accident and had to choose between receiving an immediate blood transfusion or dying, I wouldn’t hesitate.
I assume he wouldnt’ve suggested so strongly that I donate unless he was relatively sure it was safe. My sexual history doesn’t matter; the safety of my blood does.
Again, given that blood is tested regularly before being used, I’d feel fine if it passed Red Cross testing. YMMV. I’d prefer to live with risk rather than die.
That’s a false dilemna, and it wasn’t the question he asked. Turn it around and say I’m hypothetically a former IV drug user. If you’re not aware of the risks, that means I’m in the highest possible risk category for HIV and Hepatitus. However, I haven’t used in five years, have passed screening tests showing I’m negative, I’m currently in great shape and healthy as a horse, etc. etc.
It doesn’t matter. If I’ve ever been an IV drug user I’m out for life. Should I let the fact that I think their “highest risk category” and “out for life” rules are silly allow me to lie my way through their screening techniques? No. They err on the side of caution, and it’s their call as professional screeners to maintain the integrity of the blood supply, not mine, no matter how much I disagree or want to help.
**
That doesn’t change the fact that I’d rather have experts in charge of who gives blood instead of someone else.
**
Your doctor isn’t the person in charge of ensuring the safety of the blood supply. Why should his opinion matter more then those who work at the blood bank?
Since when are all test 100% accurate? A test is simply one layer of protection the blood banks use to ensure a safe supply. One other layer is, yep you guessed it, questions about where you’ve been, what drugs you take, and who you’ve been sleeping with.
Is this really about helping people or is it about them not wanting you to donate?
Marc
This is a silly question.
Like I said, YMMV. This is my choice, you can make your own call.
Originally posted by Civil Defense
Well, in a life or death situation, very few would hesitate in that situation. Excepting Christian Scientists and those who object on religious grounds. But the point is that blood is screened for those reasons, so that people won’t have to choose between dying and getting contaminated blood.
Though incidentally, when I was born and my mom was in hospital, she actually made a point of saying she didn’t want a transfusion if she started hemorrhaging…(I was born in 1984, before blood had started being checked for AIDS and the like).
Anyway…the point is, you don’t get to make the decision. Sure, maybe you’d take risky blood, but the person in need of the transfusion might not.
:smack: No, it’s not your choice. It’s their choice about whether your blood belongs in the blood supply. If you lie you’re wrongfully taking that choice away from them, and you’re not the one who has to live with the consequences: we are. Everybody else. The guys who are going to get your blood.
And if my blood helps someone, I’ll be happy.