Donate Blood

(Cross-posted at Booman Tribune, Euro Trib and My Left Wing)

Essentially the point of the bloggesphere is to improve the world. Most places have their own goals, their own mission, and work with others who are willing to help.. whether its exposing the calculated lies of the Bush administration or helping raise money for progressive candidates, these are all important avenues and as most people here would agree these acts can be viewed as helping other people or at the least preventing harm.

Well I don't have anything insightful for you today, sorry!  I just wanted to remind people that...

Under normal circumstances, every two seconds someone in America will need a blood transfusion. Blood transfusions are used for trauma victims - due to accidents and burns - heart surgery, organ transplants, women with complications during childbirth, newborns and premature babies, and patients receiving treatment for leukemia, cancer or other diseases, such as sickle cell disease and thalassemia. (source)

The American Red Cross has a website which can help you find a place to donate blood if you are interested and/or able.

•  Oh, very nice idea.

  Well, for those of us who can.  I have many friends who are really angry with the Red Cross because they are  "males who have had sex with males", and therefore barred.  It is blatantly discriminatory.  There are plenty of heteros who are at risk, and there are plenty of "heteros" who would just lie anyway.  

  I had heard they were considering changing that, but I don't know if they ever did.

  That said, I am actually a frequent blood donor myself--I'm O-negative, they call and beg for my blood a lot.  And one time I was talking to the nurse who was doing the collection, and she said that only 4 or 5% of people who can give blood actually do so.  I thought that was shockingly low.  

  by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:29:13 AM PDT

  •  As of Last Friday

    That question was still there.. it is discriminatory... although I think their concern for good blood seems genuine.. and with shortages in blood, they do need a rapid process, so I understand their interest in trying to save lives; however, I do think it is a shame that people's private lives must be a factor in trying to help others. It is as you said, blatantly discriminatory.

    by deano on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:36:26 AM PDT

    •  Maybe

      their concern is not genuine after reading your posts, thanks for the info..

      by deano on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:53:06 AM PDT

  •  Someone gave 2 pints of blood

    when I was six years old and hemmhoraging from a botched tonsillectomy. I return the favor by donating blood and have now given 1 1/2 gallons.
    It's easy, relatively painless and leaves you with a really good feeling! (And they have cookies).

    by historys mysteries on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:40:40 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for bringing this up.

    The specific question the Red Cross asks is, "Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once?"  If you answer yes, you are permanently excluded from donating blood.  

    This policy has been in place since 1985 -- in the intervening 20 years, the screening process has become more effective at detecting infected donations -- but the policy has not been altered to reflect the increased safety rate.  

    While the policy may have been justifiable in 1985, when far less was known about HIV than is known now, it's completely unwarranted today to suggest that a single same-sex encounter is grounds for a permanent deferral.  

    by osterizer on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:48:36 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      A gay male friend of mine was extremely hurt, outraged and insulted by finding this out when he went to give blood in college.  He had always been scrupulous about safe sex and hadn't had many partners either, which is more than I can say for many of my straight friends.

      by sarac on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:06:08 AM PDT

•  Yes!

  Thanks for the reminder.

  I wrote about that here:

  http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2005/7/21/6052/69523

  by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:35:14 AM PDT

  •  Hey Jerome

    No problem, I was considering posting over at Euro Trib but thought the Red Cross website was different, let me look into it.

    by deano on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:37:45 AM PDT

  •  Ok

    Its now over there. :)

    by deano on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:55:24 AM PDT

•  I always feel better after giving blood

  Like I did something worthwhile on that day.  

  So I agree that it is a good idea.

  by jzso on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:36:13 AM PDT

•  oughta have a poll

  Yes, I give blood regularly.
  No, I can't due to medical conditions.
  No, because 'being gay' disqualifies me.
  I've never given blood. (Does it hurt?)
  No, because I hate needles(faint, vomit, anxiety attacks)
  I've given blood before, but I could do it more often.
  I'm O-neg and Red Cross reminds me the minute I'm eligible to donate again.
  I'm afraid to because I've had a bad 'stick' experience.

  It is true that the Red Cross prefers donors to be squeaky clean virgins not on any medications.  But it doesn't mean that you are disqualified just because you had a tattoo or are currently on a prescription medication.  

  Getting poked with a large gauge needle does hurt but not much and not for long.  If you are a hard stick, let the phlebotomists know and let them know of any preferences you have.  They'll probably defer to their specialist. It isn't an official title, but everybody knows who the really good ones are.  The bonus there is that the people who are good at the hard sticks are also good at keeping their patients calm.

  "I'm afraid." Take a friend.  Tell the phlebotomist what your concerns are.  Nobody wants you to freak out or faint.  They want to help you.

  by Fabian on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:44:00 AM PDT

  •  Not to mention...

    "I lived for six months in Denmark in 2003 and am therefore disqualified from giving blood until further notice".  

    That would be me.  Denmark has one of the cleanest meat supplies on the planet, but for some reason they are on the list of countries flagged for mad cow risk if you've been there for a total of six months, so I'm banned from giving blood now.

    I'm very very frustrated by this, as is my favorite local Red Cross nurse who says he lost half his best donors when that rule went into effect - but I guess it's an unknown risk they don't want to take.  I am O negative, the 'emergency room' type, and gave blood as often as I could since I was 18 years old and going to NYU, when the local Red Cross would call me like clockwork.  

    All they need is a blood test for that disease so they can lift the ban - the day they do I'll be first in line at the donation clinic.  Meanwhile I gnash my teeth every time I see another call to give blood...

    by sarac on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:11:48 AM PDT

  •  in my case....

    I can't give blood because my body goes into shock when I do.

    The first time, nobody told me anything. The nurses just assumed I had passed out like a lot of people do and just fed me more cookies and stuff.

    The second time, when I came to, the nurse said, "Well, you're blood pressure is almost back to normal."  I understand this isn't all that uncommon---I think he said 1 in a couple of thousand people has this happen.

    by mimi9 on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 10:18:11 AM PDT

    •  I think you might be disqualified

      Under some conditions the Red Cross can't use the donated unit.  One of the conditions is taking over 20 minutes to donate a unit.  I think that the bad reaction is also a disqualification for the unit being used.

      You might think about getting a medical alert tag that to notify people that you go into shock easily.

      by Fabian on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 10:26:51 AM PDT

      •  well...

        I don't go into shock easily. Only if I lose a pint of blood!  So what exactly would a medic alert badge do for me?  If I was in an accident and lost blood, I would pass out anyhow. I wouldn't need a badge to tell the paramedics what the problem is.

        I've had blood taken for tests (marriage license, for example) and have never had any problems.

        I was told never to give blood again. Obviously, doing something that puts your body into shock isn't a healthy thing to do.

        by mimi9 on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 02:03:03 PM PDT

        •  Surgery - for any reason

          Basically any time they need to do a little cutting on you, they need to know your BP is liable to drop or do strange things.  I know from my C-sections that they give you meds to prop up your BP during surgery - they might need to keep a sharp eye on your stats.

          by Fabian on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 05:41:25 PM PDT

•  Donate blood wisely.

  I'm AB+ and donate whenever I can.

  That said, "for more than a decade, gay rights advocates have protested about a federal policy that forbids blood donation by men who have had sex with men."

  Now, reports the LATimes,  "some college students" are trying to get the policy changed by "going after the American Red Cross -- the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country. . . . Activists say that if they can get the Red Cross to change its stance the FDA will follow."

  College students, particularly in the Northeast, are arguing that, "although safe blood supplies are essential, this particular policy is outdated, ineffective and homophobic. All blood is tested before use, they note, and enforcement of the policy depends on the unchecked answers that potential donors give on a routine questionnaire. Most important, the activists say, the danger of HIV contamination comes from those who practice unsafe sex -- regardless of the donor's sexual orientation."

  The student government at the University of Maine, Orono, "banned the Red Cross from conducting blood drives on campus. It opened the campus only to a blood collection company that supported changing the FDA rule."

  Last February, the associated editorial chair of the Harvard Crimson wrote argues that, while

  Blood donation is a fantastic mitzvah--at nearly no cost to the donor, the recipient receives an incredibly valuable gift--and the American Red Cross is to be commended for making it so easy for Harvard students to donate blood

  The prohibition on blood donoations from men who have had sex with men, and from women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men,

  is both redundant and discriminatory. All donated blood is tested for HIV using two tests, one that tests for antibodies produced in response to an HIV infection, and another that tests for the genetic material of the HIV virus itself. Together, these tests are highly sensitive, meaning that they rarely produce false negatives, and are accurate when performed as soon as 10 days after the individual has been infected with HIV.

  The problem with prohibiting MSM from donating blood is twofold. The restrictions propagate stereotypes about promiscuity among gays, and the restrictions imply that the spread of HIV is due to sexual orientation, not sexual behavior.

  This is not just a question of discrimination, odious as that is. The prohibition apparently can make the difference between having an adequate supply of blood available or not:

  Donated blood is in short supply nationwide, and the problem is particularly acute in New England, where recent winter storms have lowered the level of donations across the region. "We probably have a day to a day-and-a-half on the shelf right now," said Richard Benjamin, the chief medical officer of the American Red Cross New England region. "We would much prefer to have three or four days on the shelf." Benjamin estimated that the number of individuals with safe blood but are rendered ineligible by the questioning process "makes the difference between having a copious supply of blood and not having blood on the shelf."

  I'm a card-carrying American Red Cross blood donor. The next time I give blood, I intend to make an issue of this. If not satisfied, I intend to seek alternative opportunities to donate blood.

  by another American on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:47:34 AM PDT

•  Just had a thought...

  What about a blood drive at the dKos convention?  Wouldn't that be a nice civic-minded exercise?

  Is there a place you can recommend activities....I'll look....

  by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:58:23 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like a great idea

    Shoot some Front Pagers an e-mail or the Yearly Kos user.

    by deano on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 08:03:13 AM PDT

•  Mad cow desease

  I tried to donate blood last year, but I lived too many years in Europe. No test of Creutzfeld-Jacob desease is available. Do you fear my blood, too?
  I anyway got a coupon to buy a reduced themepark ticket.

  by heinrich on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 09:07:41 AM PDT

  •  CJD is an insidious disease

    I believe there is no blood test for it.  It can only be detected by symptoms or by brain scan or biopsy. (mmmm tasty brains!)

    So little is known about it that they can't even devise any test for it.  Yet they have no proof way that it is or is not a blood borne disease. So the Red Cross is screwed either way.  They could take the blood and hope there is no trouble or they could decline donors and come up short.

    by Fabian on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 05:50:53 PM PDT

•  how do people feel

  about the fact that blood banks charge for blood that was donated?

  I only ask because when I was taking French lessons somehow this came up. My teacher (from Paris) was absolutely outraged. She said that wasn't true in France.

  Of course, they have national health insurance in France so it's kind of hard to compare the American system to theirs. Anyhow, she was really angry about it, I remember.  

  by mimi9 on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 10:21:40 AM PDT

  •  You aren't paying for the blood.

    You are paying for the costs involved in collecting, transporting, testing(a LOT of testing), processing and storing it.  Oh yeah, and tracking it too.  I think the only thing more closely tracked in a hospital than blood is radioactive materials and drugs.

    The benefit is that when you get a transfusion, your chances of getting a disease are almost nil.  The HIV fiasco has had some benefits. I worked with people who remembered way back when the only test they did on transfused blood was crossmatching to make sure there would be no transfusion reaction.

    by Fabian on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 10:34:15 AM PDT

    •  I have been remiss

      I used to be a regular donor, then about 15 years ago I stopped.  There was a local story in SLC about a regular donor (at least a gallon, maybe 2) who was forced to pay for blood.  He was told "If you didn't want to pay, you should have asked it to be put on account.  You didn't so, tough luck for you."  Not that I was worried about being charged if I ever needed it, just the way the situation was handled made the Red Cross look like big, greedy jerks and bullies.

      I may have misunderstood the story, but I just sort of got out of the habit and haven't been back.  I'm just plain old B+, I don't suppose that is particularly needed.

      I hav ethought about giving a sample to be a marrow donor, but never got around to that.  Should I start giving blood again?

      Side note, my dad was in for some minor sugery about 10 years ago and came out with Hepatitis.  I didn't get involved in the story, but I think he was told "you probably got it from unsafe sex so we won't help you at all."  More big-medical conglomerate infuriation.

      by WI Deadhead on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 06:43:35 PM PDT

      •  We need your blood!

        Actually B-Pos is one of the rarer blood types.  O-Neg is the most sought after because it can be used for traumas.  O-Neg is a universal donor so in tha case of an emergency, the blood can be transfused immediately without the delay of sending the patient's blood up to be typed and crossmatched with an available unit.  

        Yes, your blood is needed.  I worked at a children's hospital and the one blood product we went through was platelets.  The chemotherapy that leukemia patients undergo really trashes the platelets.  Being anemic isn't good(low red cell count) and neither is having a low white cell count(low immunity), but having low platelets will cause the patient to start bleeding since their clotting function is close to nil.  Platelets have the shortest shelf life of any blood product and when the donors dry up, the platelet supply is really hit.  So donating is really important.

        As for autologous versus undirected donation, that has to be set up in advance.  I'm pretty sure the Red Cross will charge for the autologous donations as well but the price is lower because they aren't testing the blood as tightly since it going back into the donor.  Last time I donated there was a woman on her third autologous donation and her surgery was in two weeks.

        Your dad and hepatitis?  Ten years ago was well past the HIV disaster and the blood supply would have been tested for at least Hep A & Hep B.  

        by Fabian on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 07:18:26 PM PDT

        •  I will donate again

          That was a silly reason to stop, I am fully aware of how much my blood can accomplish.  Just because the RC or a hospital or an HMO may misuse or profit from  the transaction does not eliminate the actual benefit to an actual human being.  George Bush misuses the government every day, but I still vote.

          The story wasn't about donating his own blood to himself, obviously his gallon took more time than it could possibly stay usable.  It was about building up a "credit on account" in terms of units needed.  He had voluntarily donated for years, but when he needed some he was told he hadn't specified it should be credited to his "account" so all those units didn't count and he would have to pay full price.

          The Hep... it was suspected that it came from generally lax conditions and not necessarily from the blood.

          by WI Deadhead on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 08:07:25 PM PDT

          •  Good for you!

            Bring your reading glasses - I fill my own questionnaire out and the form is long and typed small.

            by Fabian on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 02:59:08 AM PDT