No. There is another reason you should refrain from lying: the Red Cross and other blood banks report these statistics to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). If you lie on your questionaire and proclaim you have never had sex with men, then you are also screwing up the statistics and their understanding of the risks associated with various population groups. Garbage in, garbage out.
If there is a child bleeding out, and you are the only one around willing to donate blood to the kid, then by all means roll the dice. But barring such drastic circumstances, tell the friggin truth so the system can work.
Firstly, when you assume im in the US, and i correct you, that doesnt mean i need to give a statement of where i am, it means you need to ask.
Secondly, i didnt say anywhere that the lack of blood was from their restrictions.
All i said was that there are restrictions in place that stopped me from giving blood in a time of shortage. And i questioned doing something slightly immoral “for the greater good”.
In general, no. There’s no pressing need for my blood; as pointed out, I don’t think we’ve ever experienced a shortage to the magnitude where people are routinely being denied transfusions.
That being said, if there were to ever be such a horrible situation where a LOT of blood was needed, and reserves were depleted such that I’d know that my blood had a purpose and was desperately needed, then yes, I’d probably lie.
But right now, and in the past, and for the forseeable future, there’s no “greater good” to be served. There’s other blood, and until that’s all gone, I’m hanging on to mine.
Would you risk giving a child HIV?
If the child of the head of the Red Cross was bleeding to death, i’d only give my blood on the condition that they’d take my blood (with truthful answers, considering they didnt change from today) for the rest of my life.
That’s not proof that there is a desperate need, Punintentional. That’s merely proof that there are spot shortages. It’s also probably being exaggerated because that’s the way to motivate people. A solicitation for blood that said, “Well, we have plenty of blood, but it would be nice to have more,” wouldn’t work very well, would it? Does anyone have any official statistics showing that there is a desperate need for blood anywhere which is being caused because the restrictions are too tight?
Still no. Their organisation, their rules. I have no right to give blood. If the British blood service ever turns round and tells me I am unwelcome due to excessive steak consumption or whatever, then I will accept that and take my blood home.
I would only risk giving the child HIV infected blood if it was the last resort. If the child was about to bleed out (certain immediate death) and there was no safe blood available anywhere, I would accept blood from a man who has sex with men. But if safe blood was available, then that of course would be an unneccesary risk.
And why would you sacrifice the child of the Red Cross director, just because they have policies in place designed to protect the blood supply? I think you are interpreting their policy as a lifestyle judgement, which it is not. It is simply a practice designed to prevent the potential spread of deadly diseases.
Good answer, that’s what im looking for.
Although i’ve been much a part of the hi-jack as anyone else, the OP was “would you lie” regardless of what hte lie is about.
Honestly i would give my blood to a dieing child, hell, i’d give my blood to anyone that would take it.
But i would make the bluff to the head of the Red Cross for half a second to see the expression on their face.
My wild guess is they might also do that so they can identify who exactly donated infected blood. What they’d do with that information I’m not sure, but the organization in question would probably have a FAQ online describing why. It could be to notify the donor that they tested positive for (disease), could be to notify government agencies if they track infection rates, could be for their own records to bar you from future donations, or any combination thereof.
My wife used to work in a blood bank and she complained regularly about workplace blood drives, in which managers virtually require 100% compliance, and the pressure families would put on each other to donate blood for an injured relative because these would force people to either lie about their suitability and donate tainted blood or reveal why they shouldn’t.
Yes.
(Now i know you were being snarky and actually saying more than you did, so would you care to elaborate on your question and refer to posts you think i may or may not have read?. For the record the post i responded to with my statment said “You don’t know whether you have AIDS” or something similar)
I would not lie to donate blood. If I turned out to be in error, the consequences could be catastrophic and I wouldn’t want to live with the knowledge that I was to blame. I am not a medical professional and I don’t have enough facts to feel comfortable making a decision that ultimately affects other people’s health more than my own.
I would try to find out if there actually is a good reason for the policy, and if there isn’t then perhaps I’d try to join forces with others to see if the Red Cross can be persuaded to change the policy. Taking action to change the policy would probably do more good than simply flouting the rules as it would open the doors to all others in my situation and increase the pool of potential donors. That would be immeasurably more beneficial than what I could hope to achieve through my own donations.