Blood Donations

Top thread....

The resident in UK exclusion which Sarah kicked off with is interesting. When it was introduced the length of the stay required to exclude was >5 years which was then hastily brought down to >3 years when donations fell by more than predicted but was then restored to >5 years. So, as somebody who was a regular as clockwork donor thus excluded, it's reassuring to know that they're not convinced that I'm either carrying or going to develop CJD since the above indicates they would use me if donations dried up. That thought gets me through the sleepless nights.

I can understand Janet's frustration at what seemed to be inadequate staffing in D'Olier Street. However, while not wishing to defend the IBTS or anything, it must be very difficult to predict the public response to the sort of crisis we're experiencing. The blame must be shared by everybody in our so-called society - giving blood is the sort of civic-minded action which is going out of fashion in this country so these periodic crises are becoming all too regular. And please don't deluge me with "It should be more convenient". Discharging a civic duty often entails a little inconvenience and most of those who don't get around to it wouldn't be arsed getting out of their armchair if there was a blood clinic in operation in their kitchen.

I sincerely hope that anybody who has been moved by the appeal in the media to donate for the first time will make a commitment to doing it 4 times a year. It is one of the few selfless, decent acts the return from which far outstrips the effort required.

Sad to relate, however, that the question about iron content in Guinness is now moot. They gave up handing out gargle when they moved into D'Olier Street. Nonetheless, the view down the River and O'Connell Street from the cafe area nearly makes up for it.

oysterman.
 
They definitely had guinness in clinics in both Malahide and Balbriggan earlier this year.
 
I seem to remember having this debate on AAM before. My question then and now is. Has anyone proved that the incidence of vCJD is higher because of UK doners (in UK). Or is this some kookie notion that some pen pusher invented. Can anyone point me to some (proper evidence based) scientific data that would support the ban?

QP UK resident ('89 - '96)
 
stuart said:
oysterman, are you sure they stopped giving out guinness

I gave in d'olier stret last july and I am sure they had it then
I'm doubly outraged - not only have they now turned me down but they've also re-introduced booze. I know that when they moved to D'Olier Street there was to be no Guinness 'cos the woman who took my blood on my first visit there had a conversation with me on that very topic.....

Queenspawn said:
I seem to remember having this debate on AAM before. My question then and now is. Has anyone proved that the incidence of vCJD is higher because of UK doners (in UK). Or is this some kookie notion that some pen pusher invented. Can anyone point me to some (proper evidence based) scientific data that would support the ban?

QP UK resident ('89 - '96)
Couldn't agree with you more. And the fact that they have arbitrarily moved between 3 and 5 years as the exclusion parameters shows that the IBTS probably isn't overly convinced by the evidence. But you can picture the scene at the board meeting when the issue came up - nightmare memories of the Hep/HIV situation.
 
Can I suggest that Oysterman and/or Queenspawn should contact a doctor or even the cheif medical officer at IBTS to understand the reasons for the exclusions. I really don't think it's fair to lambaste these guys for taking an ultra-cautious approach to past UK residents and to the male gay community which has taken offence at their blanket exclusion in the past.
 
I know this is slightly off topic (only slightly) but can I just take this opportunity to encourage people to carry a donor card!! Please!! Seeing as how everyone is in such a giving mood :). And be sure to inform your family members of your wish to be a donor and to please honour this wish!!!

Thanks (this is a subject close to my heart at present!)
 
Have to admit its a while since I gave blood and like Clubman I keep saying I must get there.
Have heard all the stories about the [broken link removed]and just wonder does anyone know the extent of the [broken link removed]?
 
sueellen said:
Have heard all the stories about the [broken link removed]and just wonder does anyone know the extent of the [broken link removed]?

I had a concern about this a few years back and asked to speak to an IBTS doctor in confidence to clarify my queries. As it happens the medication that I had been on did not exclude me from donating.
 
I was excluded last year (Blood type A Rh Postitive - not as interesting a blood group as jem or ClubMan :) ) because I had acupuncture by a chiropractor who was not a GP.

Marion
 
From IBTS website

Variant Creutzfeld Jacob Disease (vCJD) and Blood Donation - Information for Donors

In December 2003 we learned that a blood donor in the UK might have transmitted vCJD to a patient, via a blood transfusion. In August 2004, we learnt of a second possible transmission. This means that we now have to assume that vCJD can be transmitted through blood.


Therefore, in line with our policy of taking whatever steps necessary to minimise any threat to blood safety we have decided that from 1st November 2004 we will exclude from donating:


  • People who have spent 1 year or more, in total, in the UK in the years 1980 to 1996
  • People who have had certain operations in the UK since 1st January 1980. This includes neurosurgery, eye surgery, appendectomy,tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, splenectomy and lymph node biopsy.
If you are excluded from donating because of this decision we would like to say thank you for your valuable support over the years. We regret this necessary decision and we appreciate your support to date.

We will continue to keep this situation under review.
We would like to reassure all donors that there is no risk of infection to them by donating.

We estimate that these measures will result in a loss of 4% of donors. The IBTS is now faced with the challenge of recruiting 4,000 committed donors.


I guess my question is one of risk assessment.Which will cause more risk to life, cancelling surgery or accepting blood from Brits. I don't see people in UK keeling over and dying as a result. The Irish health service is under enough pressure without a further scarce variable to manage.
 
The IBTS make my blood boil - no pun intended.

They scream out for our blood - but yet have done everything to stop regular donors from giving blood. From the time I was 18 I gave blood EVERY time the mobile clinic was in town. Had the silver pin by 22 and Gold pin by 25. Am now ineligible to gve blood purely bacause I am gay.

They have blocked any man - who has ever had even one incident with another man. You could have had relations with a prostitute (or intavenous drug user or other high risk group) and are only supposed to abstain from donating for a year!

Dont get me wrong - I know every fact and figure concerning risk of transmission of HIV - but surely every blood sample should be tested before being given to a patient. I am more cautious about my health than any heterosexual guy I know and get regular full checkups. But am banned from giving blood. Its infuriating when i see other males who put themselves at more risk and are yet eligible to donate. They have shut out a whole section of the population based on their prejudices.

All blood should be screened! Its the only safe option for the patient.

My rant over!
 
I have to agree Sol28. A gay friend of mine who has been in a monogamous relationship for the last 12 years is in the same position. Other heterosexual friends who shag everything in sight could go in today and give blood without a bother.
I think that anyone who is shagging around knows that they are in a high-risk category and should exclude themselves.
 
I have always wondered about this as well. Does this mean that basically the blood is not screened after it has been donated ? I can only presume they don't, which is a frightening thought if you even end up needing a blood transfusion. Surely it would make more sense to screen all the blood donated , and let anyone who considers themselves low risk ( such as Sol28 ) to donate.
 
TigerNow said:
Does this mean that basically the blood is not screened after it has been donated ? I can only presume they don't, which is a frightening thought if you even end up needing a blood transfusion.

Never been sure about this - But I can only presume that by blocking a risk group they dont fully test the blood. Otherwise why block them?

I could always lie and give blood - so what happens to my blood then? I know at any point in time my blood is "clean". Since I get it checked (irrespective of my behaviour) every 6 months - which I think anyone who doesnt yet have a regular partner should do, regardlss of gender or sexuality. So yes it irks me and many more of us who are more than eligible to donate.

And according to the equality act - this is discrimination - Imagine if they said coloured people, or wheelchair users were banned!
 
as far as I am aware the blood transfusion board have got an exemption from the equality legislation. The argued that they need to be able to refuse donations from high risk groups I think.

Scary thought though that blood is not screened no matter who is donating. I have thought about it myself , but I cannot donate either. It is a stupid situation, especially when they are crying out for blood.
 
If you check out www.ibts.ie they say themselves that all blood donations are tested for HIV, hepatitis, syphilis etc and that you will be informed if something is found.
 
aldaco said:
They say themselves that all blood donations are tested for HIV, hepatitis, syphilis etc

So can anyone tell me why is there a blanket ban?

(I dont expect an answer on this - Rhetorical question!)
 
I am afraid to say it, but here goes. Maybe all the blood is not tested, and only a sample ( say 10% is tested ) . Therfore by a blanket ban they don't have to worry so much about contaminated blood getting into the supply.

I have to agree with Sol28 . If all the blood is screened, then why a blanket ban. I can understand them saying to someone who would be high-risk, and who does know their health status, to not donate for the sake of saving time and money, but a total ban seems illogical if their claim that all blood is screened is true.
 
Back
Top