Thread: Donating Blood & Blood Type

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, just who you've actually had sex with. Even if you consider yourself heterosexual and for some reason have had sex with a man in the past you'll be excluded, a homosexual who has never had sex with another man will not be excluded.

Which is why I said a man who had gay sex rather then just a gay man. Though ideas like gay men having unprotected sex more frequently led me to believe there might be just a tinge of homophobia regardless of if anyone realizes it or not.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My country has very few black people compared to the US and I haven't heard any statistics of AIDS prevalence in the black community, but if the risks were just as high then I would want them to be excluded as well. Just put yourself in the shoes of the blood recipient, would you want to be sure that everything possible was done to make sure that it is safe or would you rather risk an incurable and fatal illness to please a few bleeding hearts? In an emergency, you will be given blood without your consent, how would you feel if through no fault of your own, you ended up with HIV because the blood technicians weren't stringent enough in their screening? If we can drastically reduce the chances of transmitting infected blood by simply asking one question and excluding the small portion of the population that answers yes, then by all means do it.

I'm actually glad to hear that to be honest. I like it when people are consistent.

Hopefully I will never have to be in a position where a blood transfusion is needed. But if I was while I would like for the blood used in my transfusion to be clean I would also like it to be available. From what I understand, at least in the US, there is a drastic shortage. There were even a line of fairly aggressive commercials encouraging people to donate blood, though honestly they made it seem more like threatening.

Of course don't they have to screen all the blood anyway to check for these diseases? They wouldn't just take it on faith so what does it matter if the person has a higher risk for infection when their blood will just be screened bad and thrown out anyway? Wouldn't it be better to take the bad with the good and just throw out what doesn't work rather then losing good blood that we could have used?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Also, probably least importantly, blood banks have no legal obligation to receive blood from anyone. They could flat out say "we hate gays, go away" if they wanted and wouldn't be breaking any laws.

True, but then they also have no right to complain when they run out of blood.

P.S. My mother says her blood type is A- and mine is A+ so I was way off base there.

P.S.S. I don't know how it's done in other areas, but my grandmother volunteers at the blood drives here and says that they just have to read a booklet and do a blood test. Otherwise, as long as you haven't left the country, you're good to go.

Where I live they take some insane measures to screen as well as possible. First, you fill out the form. Then, they take you into a room where a nurse asks you other questions, mostly related to sex, checks your arms for needle marks and takes your blood pressure. They make sure you've read the brochure and know that you can leave at any time. Before actually giving blood, the nurse leaves the room and leaves you a paper with two stickers on it. On both stickers are bar codes, and above both stickers are words identifying them: "YES, it's okay to use my blood" and "NO, do not use my blood." You're supposed to choose a sticker, stick it on the form, and throw the rest out. This is so that, in case you lied and are at risk, but are too embarrassed to tell anyone or leave the building at this point, you can choose the 'NO' sticker, no one will know, and they won't use your blood.

There is a biological reason why gay men are more likely to get aids, even if they didn't tend to be more promiscuous than straight people, but I don't want to explain it because I'd have to use naughty words.

They do all sorts of tests on the blood, but it apparently isn't 100% guaranteed, and I think I read in the brochure that there are some diseases that their equipment can't detect.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

1) Have you been to the UK in the last [6 months or something]?

If you've been in the UK for over 6mos (I think), you can no longer give blood in the US because of Mad Cow Disease. I don't think it harms you, but they don't want it spreading over here

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Where I live they take some insane measures to screen as well as possible. First, you fill out the form. Then, they take you into a room where a nurse asks you other questions, mostly related to sex, checks your arms for needle marks and takes your blood pressure. They make sure you've read the brochure and know that you can leave at any time. Before actually giving blood, the nurse leaves the room and leaves you a paper with two stickers on it. On both stickers are bar codes, and above both stickers are words identifying them: "YES, it's okay to use my blood" and "NO, do not use my blood." You're supposed to choose a sticker, stick it on the form, and throw the rest out. This is so that, in case you lied and are at risk, but are too embarrassed to tell anyone or leave the building at this point, you can choose the 'NO' sticker, no one will know, and they won't use your blood.

There is a biological reason why gay men are more likely to get aids, even if they didn't tend to be more promiscuous than straight people, but I don't want to explain it because I'd have to use naughty words.

They do all sorts of tests on the blood, but it apparently isn't 100% guaranteed, and I think I read in the brochure that there are some diseases that their equipment can't detect.

Some really fascinating stuff about the donation process thank you. I don't suppose you would be comfortable messaging me the information as I really am curious? I have no problem with anybody being excluded as long as it's with very good reason. Myths that gay men are less likely to use protection just don't sit well with me as a valid excuse.

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

Of course don't they have to screen all the blood anyway to check for these diseases? They wouldn't just take it on faith so what does it matter if the person has a higher risk for infection when their blood will just be screened bad and thrown out anyway? Wouldn't it be better to take the bad with the good and just throw out what doesn't work rather then losing good blood that we could have used?

Yes they check but the tests aren't 100% effective, and when you're dealing with thousands of blood donations there's a huge risk of an infected sample slipping through the cracks. It's also a time and money consuming process which is a burden for most blood collection organizations which are non-profit.

People have died after being infected by AIDS from tainted blood in the past, that's why they're so serious about screening. It's completely unfair for a blood recipient to be infected with a deadly disease, whereas a refused blood donor suffers very little.

Here in the States, if there were sexual preference bans on donating blood, I think most people would lie as they get paid for donating. Back in 1995 or so, in Pensacola, Florida, I could earn about $200. a month from donating plasma.

As for accidentally being given a transfusion, I carry my Medical Power of Attorney in my pocket at all times. It says very specifically that (regarding blood) "I refuse all fractions derived from any primary component of blood."
And concerning the use of my own blood: "I will only accept.... Hemodilution, cell salvage, dialysis machine using non-blood primer, and tagging."

It's starting to look a little ratty though, so I'll have to replace it soon which is going to be a royal hassle.

Originally Posted by Armistice

If you've been in the UK for over 6mos (I think), you can no longer give blood in the US because of Mad Cow Disease. I don't think it harms you, but they don't want it spreading over here

It's because of a similar disease also caused by prions (I'm not exactly sure if it's the exact same agent as Mad Cow infecting humans or different one) that seems to be more common (although still very rare) in the UK. It can't be detected in blood tests and is always fatal so they just don't take any chances.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yes they check but the tests aren't 100% effective, and when you're dealing with thousands of blood donations there's a huge risk of an infected sample slipping through the cracks. It's also a time and money consuming process which is a burden for most blood collection organizations which are non-profit.

People have died after being infected by AIDS from tainted blood in the past, that's why they're so serious about screening. It's completely unfair for a blood recipient to be infected with a deadly disease, whereas a refused blood donor suffers very little.

It just seems like a risk vs reward situation. No matter what stipulations we put we're never going to be 100% safe and the question is are the supplies enough to meet the demand and would it be worth opening us up to a greater perceived risk to make sure we have enough for transfusions?

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this particular subject as I would probably be happier risking an HIV infection if a blood transfusion could save my life.

Oh and I would also be curious to know who the AIDS infected blood came from. In other words was it from the targeted group or is this form of selection really helping.

@ Zhaylin
In blood, there are 3 alleles (or, versions of a trait like tall and short for height) that determine which blood type you are: there is A, B, and i.
Each person inherits 2 of these alleles; one from each parent. Therefore, each person actually has a 2-letter blood type. If you are AA, you inherited an A from each parent and are technically called 'homozygous', because both letters are the same. In this case, your blood type is A. You can be BB, which is the same case as AA except here, your blood type is B. If you inherit an A and a B, your blood type is AB and you are called 'heterozygous' because the letters are different. If you inherit an i from each parent, your blood type is written as ii in the direct biological format. If you have ii, your blood type is O. (No one knows why the scientist who came up with the lettering system used i's instead of O's.) If you inherit an i and a B, your blood type is written as Bi, but your blood type is just B.

See, i's are blank. They add nothing to your blood. That's why O- is the universal donor; it can't give you anything you don't already have. The i's just don't do anything. The RH is a completely different ball game and its inherited separately from your blood type letter.

So I am Bi (still called heterozygous because they're different letters). I got the B from my father, who is also Bi. And I got the i from my mother because she is O.

Does that make sense?

Also in reference to the gay men donating blood discussion, its because of anal sex. The rectum is very easily torn so it bleeds quite easily. If a man's partner has AIDS and he has a cut, the other man can get the infected blood inside of his blood stream and then he has AIDS too.

Originally Posted by Schlachtfeld

Also in reference to the gay men donating blood discussion, its because of anal sex. The rectum is very easily torn so it bleeds quite easily. If a man's partner has AIDS and he has a cut, the other man can get the infected blood inside of his blood stream and then he has AIDS too.

While it might be true it still leaves us at square one for anal sex is enjoyed just as frequently by straight couples as well.

Precisely. But it happens to gay men far more often because they can't have traditional intercourse like heterosexual couples can. Lack of options equals far more anal sex than most heterosexual couples. That lessens the chances of the disease to be spread to people who have traditional intercourse more.

Originally Posted by Schlachtfeld

Precisely. But it happens to gay men far more often because they can't have traditional intercourse like heterosexual couples can. Lack of options equals far more anal sex than most heterosexual couples. That lessens the chances of the disease to be spread to people who have traditional intercourse more.

That I can agree to. Though personally I would still rather take the risk, trust the blood tests, and potentially save my life (not saying you thought otherwise or anything, just a general statement ).

Well in an emergency, they give everone O- since its the universal donor and whatnot; I'm hoping they screen their stockpiles rather thoroughly XD
It would all depend on the severity of the situation, I suppose.

My, I enjoy talk of blood type. It's so fascinating!

Originally Posted by Schlachtfeld

Well in an emergency, they give everone O- since its the universal donor and whatnot; I'm hoping they screen their stockpiles rather thoroughly XD
It would all depend on the severity of the situation, I suppose.

My, I enjoy talk of blood type. It's so fascinating!

It is though I tend to lean towards the predicting ones personality part of it myself. I love that kind of thing. x3

My mother actually had a lot of problems during both her pregnancy's with me and my brother because of her blood type. She had to have shots so her body wouldn't start attacking the fetuses.

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

It just seems like a risk vs reward situation. No matter what stipulations we put we're never going to be 100% safe and the question is are the supplies enough to meet the demand and would it be worth opening us up to a greater perceived risk to make sure we have enough for transfusions?

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this particular subject as I would probably be happier risking an HIV infection if a blood transfusion could save my life.

Oh and I would also be curious to know who the AIDS infected blood came from. In other words was it from the targeted group or is this form of selection really helping.

Although blood banks are always looking for more donations, I don't think we're having trouble with supply and I've certainly never heard of blood not being available for a patient in need. Since it's not really up to the blood recipient, blood banks can't afford to play a giant game of russian roulette with patients and owe it to them to make sure that the blood is as safe as possible, not "reasonably safe". The infection rate from blood transfusions needs to be 0, or we'd have to deal with countless lawsuits and government intervention.

I don't know if it's possible to trace the source of infected blood once it's been distributed, I did find this citation however:

The last statistical and epidemiological review into blood service policy in the UK found that if the ban on MSM donating blood were to be lifted, the risk of HIV entering blood stocks would increase by 500%. This brings into question the effectiveness of blood testing services of all blood donors. The review also found that if the ban was changed to only exclude men who have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months, the increase would still be roughly 60%.

Had myself typed at a college health fair last year. I'm an A-.

However, I'm not very likely to do any donating. Needles make me woozy. Heck, I nearly passed out just from the lancet for the type test. Also, I'm waaaay underweight (hovering around 103-104 pounds).

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Although blood banks are always looking for more donations, I don't think we're having trouble with supply and I've certainly never heard of blood not being available for a patient in need. Since it's not really up to the blood recipient, blood banks can't afford to play a giant game of russian roulette with patients and owe it to them to make sure that the blood is as safe as possible, not "reasonably safe". The infection rate from blood transfusions needs to be 0, or we'd have to deal with countless lawsuits and government intervention.

I don't know if it's possible to trace the source of infected blood once it's been distributed, I did find this citation however:

Mmmm no offense meant, but I would have to see where they came up with those numbers before I would believe that. Otherwise the US would be riddled with infected donated blood.

Again we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by L33tsaber

Had myself typed at a college health fair last year. I'm an A-.

However, I'm not very likely to do any donating. Needles make me woozy. Heck, I nearly passed out just from the lancet for the type test. Also, I'm waaaay underweight (hovering around 103-104 pounds).

Ooo, it's even worse when you have some shaky old lady who keeps missing your vein trying to put the needle in. Happened to me when I was hospitalized with pneumonia some years back. She kept sticking me over and over again and when she finally got it, the injection site burned like there was no tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Blackberryfox

Mmmm no offense meant, but I would have to see where they came up with those numbers before I would believe that. Otherwise the US would be riddled with infected donated blood.

The National Blood Service - Exclusion of Men who have Sex with Men from Blood Donation

Note that a five-fold increase of say... 10 cases is still just 50 cases, which is very small next to how many people receive blood. Still, one case is too much.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Note that a five-fold increase of say... 10 cases is still just 50 cases, which is very small next to how many people receive blood. Still, one case is too much.

Again we'll just have to agree to disagree as I still say if this were the truth the US would be in a lot more trouble seeing as areas don't take these precautions and we do just fine.

And now if you'll excuse me it really is far past my bedtime. It was a pleasure discussing this with you.

Thanks for trying to explain it, Schlachtfeld but I'm a bona fide idiot when it comes to anything scientific or mathematical. It interests me a GREAT deal (especially dominate/recessive genes) but I cannot wrap my brain around it lol *sigh*

Blackberry, chances are, your mother was RH- I had that problem as well. I had to have 2 shots each time I became pregnant (4). One shot was given at about 4 months and the other was given after my children were born. The way it was explained to me is that my body would treat the fetus as a hostile invader and attack it. The first child usually isn't a problem, but once it's born, the blood mixes and the body more easily recognizes the "intruder". When further conception occurs, the mothers body doesn't hesitate to attack because it's more familiar with the perceived threat. I don't know what the dangers are to the baby. I looked it up long ago but I've forgotten.
Sweet dreams.

I used to be afraid of needles. But being pregnant 4 times quickly made sure the phobia disappeared It helps that I have VERY visible veins. Years ago, I was curious if I could draw my own blood. I had a needle left over from giving my pets shots, so I tried. It was hard because I had to pull the syringe with my mouth, but I did it
My mom and oldest son have very hard to find veins. One time, my mom was stuck over 15 times before she told them enough.

The places where I donate test the blood every time. The thing is, there's a window for HIV to appear. Depending on the test, it wont show up from 16 days to a month. If someone who's in that window donates blood, they'll have a false negative. That's because they cant track down HIV down that accurately. It doesn't destroy cells right out, it hides in white blood cells and all of that jazz. That's also the reason why antibiotics only work bacteria but not on viruses. Viruses hid in cells and replicate that way. White blood cells cant run out there and target viruses, because they're camping out inside them period. When CD-4 cells start decreasing that's when they know somethings going on in the body.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Blackberry, chances are, your mother was RH- I had that problem as well. I had to have 2 shots each time I became pregnant (4). One shot was given at about 4 months and the other was given after my children were born. The way it was explained to me is that my body would treat the fetus as a hostile invader and attack it. The first child usually isn't a problem, but once it's born, the blood mixes and the body more easily recognizes the "intruder". When further conception occurs, the mothers body doesn't hesitate to attack because it's more familiar with the perceived threat. I don't know what the dangers are to the baby. I looked it up long ago but I've forgotten.
Sweet dreams.

Yeah that's exactly how my mom explained it to me. I just know that giving birth to my younger brother was really really hard on her though neither of her pregnancies were easy.