Blood Donation & Remuneration

[Switch]

I'm a regular volunteer plasma donor. Today while I was down at my local ARCBS I caught a flyer calling for more white males to register as potential bone marrow donors. Resolving to read up on the process at home, I was thereby ensnared by the Wikipedia effect and discovered - amongst other things - the phenomenon of remunerated blood donation.

It's one of those things which seems entirely unremarkable once one has actually grasped the concept, and yet which would never have occurred to one as a possibility without the reality first being thrust in one's face.

In any case, after the initial "hey, why I don't get paid for my blood? " reaction I settled down to read about the whys and wherefores of practices between countries and agencies. It turns out that Australia's entire blood supply is derived from volunteer donors, most via the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (ARCBS), and of their various rationales for not remunerating donors, the one that caught my interest was the notion that switching to a remunerating system wouldn't actually increase the blood supply very much (whilst increasing the cost of blood significantly) as while it would bring in more donors, it would also result in some who currently donate choosing not to as the practice would shift in perception from being a service to the community to a goods/services exchange like any other which the market can be expected to handle.

Considering this as it applies to myself, I think it's a reasonable point. If the service switched to a remunerating system now I'd probably continue to go, as it's an established and mostly comfortable part of my schedule at this point and the extra cash would be handy, but whether I would've ever started going in the first place had the system been a remunerating one back then is another question entirely.

In any case I'm just looking to get a handle on what the situation is out there. Apologies in advance for the complexity of the poll.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

What poll?

In the US, most blood is donated through the American Red Cross. There are also blood donor centers that pay. From my limited knowledge, their donors are primarily people who are desperate for money. I'm willing to bet that those centers have to turn down a higher proportion of potential donors for health reasons than the Red Cross does.

Good for you for donating so regularly! Unfortunately, I've been unable to give at all in recent years.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Donating for free is fine. It would be scary if people start lying to make money and donating more often than their body can handle it. There's also concern that it would reduce the number of donations because these charity organizations can only afford to pay so much.

I try to donate as often as I can. I'll donate again next month. They kept calling me telling me there is an urgent need this time of year. Then I try and schedule an appointment and find out the only time I can do it (so I'm not skipping classes and there is a free slot) is a Wednesday two weeks from now (at the time of the appointment, it was a Wednesday a month and and a half away). You figure they would be a bit more flexible.

 

[Switch]

What poll?

The poll in which I spelled 'remuneration' incorrectly about fifteen times.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to give at all in recent years.

Oh? Just time issues or some funky exclusion criteria? I know there are a lot of those around.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I used to donate blood regularly at the Red Cross without getting paid; last time I went they refused to take my blood because I sneezed which kind of pissed me of since I didn't even have a cold at the time, but something tickled my nose, so I'm waiting a bit before giving them my blood next time.

Anyway, my brother doesn't donate blood to the Red Cross, but instead donates plasma at a local hospital, and he gets I think 50€ or something for that. Which I have no problem at all with since a) it's a bit more laborious than just donating a pint of red blood cells and b) as far as I know blood plasma is a for-profit business used primarily for the production of certain drugs and not directly to safe patients' lifes. Still a good thing of course and absolutely necessary, but if he hospital makes money off the stuff and the pharma companies do too, why shouldn't the donor get something too?

 

[thestrangequark]

I can't give blood but would if I could. I would certainly do it for free, but there were some rough times in college when I wished I could donate for money.

 

[bigdaddy]

God bless America that I can't give blood because I'm gay.

Stupid fucking country.

 

[Roger Wilco]

God bless America that I can't give blood because I'm gay.

Stupid fucking country.

What if you just lie on the questionaire?

 

[Switch]

God bless America that I can't give blood because I'm gay.

Stupid fucking country.

Here it's that you can't donate blood if you're a man who has had sex with men, not if you're gay per se. I can't recall if there's an expiration attached to that deferral criteria or not.

God bless America that I can't give blood because I'm gay.

Stupid fucking country.

What if you just lie on the questionaire?

A non-zero chance of finding oneself in front of a jury at some point?

 

[Captain Shaw]

God bless America that I can't give blood because I'm gay.

Stupid fucking country.

I think its the same in the UK.

 

[Roger Wilco]

A non-zero chance of finding oneself in front of a jury at some point?

I don't see on what grounds exactly. Of course if you have some transmittable disease and donate blood anyway or something and lie about that it's different, but just saying "nope, I'm not gay"? Of course, I understand why you wouldn't want to donate blood to an organisation that says it doesn't want it.

 

[Switch]

A non-zero chance of finding oneself in front of a jury at some point?

I don't see on what grounds exactly. Of course if you have some transmittable disease and donate blood anyway or something and lie about that it's different, but just saying "nope, I'm not gay"? Of course, I understand why you wouldn't want to donate blood to an organisation that says it doesn't want it.

As I understand it the screening processes aren't perfect. If your blood turns out to be, umm, problematic in some respect, and you've deliberately lied on a legal document re: a criteria which would've resulted in your exclusion had you told the truth, I suspect you could be charged with endangering the public safety or something. Or worse if the blood was actually given to someone to adverse effect.

Obviously it sucks to be told 'no', but I don't know why it would even cross someone's mind to lie. Y'know, unless they would be getting paid for the donation.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yes of course, but I'm going under the assumption that this exclusion of "men who've had sex with men" (the same criteria is used in Austria too) is useless and that gay men who want to donate blood are generally healthy. Donating blood when you know you're sick is obviously highly irresponsible, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

What poll?

The poll in which I spelled 'remuneration' incorrectly about fifteen times.

Weird. The poll didn't show the first time. Really!

Unfortunately, I've been unable to give at all in recent years.

Oh? Just time issues or some funky exclusion criteria? I know there are a lot of those around.

Oh, no, if it were just time, I'd find a way.

Originally, I gave up because twice in a row, they stopped part way through the pint because my blood was flowing so slowly, they were afraid my vein would collapse. I'm going to try again; my blood pressure is a bit higher now, unfortunately, so maybe it will flow more quickly.

But I have to wait until it's been a full 12 months since I was raped, because I have no way of knowing whether he was at risk for HIV. (I do know that my own tests have come back fine, twice.)

 

[Switch]

Yes of course, but I'm going under the assumption that this exclusion of "men who've had sex with men" (the same criteria is used in Austria too) is useless

Well that's a fairly large assumption to make. I'm not willing to research the matter to the degree required to venture any kind of informed opinion myself, but it seems to me that IF the screening procedures are in fact imperfect, and IF it is indeed the case that men-who-have-sex-with-men are at significantly greater risk than the general population of having blood unsuitable for donation, then it makes as much sense to exclude them as potential donors as it does any other high-risk group such as drug users, prostitutes, those who've recently had tattoos done, etc.

 

[Switch]

What poll?

The poll in which I spelled 'remuneration' incorrectly about fifteen times.

Weird. The poll didn't show the first time. Really!

Yeah I know. The poll system is a bit weird: the thread is posted and then you make the poll. And that one took me a while.

Originally, I gave up because twice in a row, they stopped part way through the pint because my blood was flowing so slowly, they were afraid my vein would collapse.

Interesting; I assume you had something to squeeze to pump the vein up a bit? And that still didn't work? If I don't squeeze at the start the machine often complains a bit, but then it settles down and I only have to squeeze occasionally.

But I have to wait until it's been a full 12 months since I was raped, because I have no way of knowing whether he was at risk for HIV. (I do know that my own tests have come back fine, twice.)

Well I just put my foot in it didn't I? I'm sorry to hear about that, Ziyal.

 

[bigdaddy]

Blood levels are incredibly low right now because of the snow and everytime I see it on the news I go "that's what you get fuckers!". A whore can give blood as long as they aren't into "gay sex".

 

[Switch]

Blood levels are incredibly low right now because of the snow and everytime I see it on the news I go "that's what you get fuckers!". A whore can give blood as long as they aren't into "gay sex".

In theory the level of acceptable risk is a function of supply vs. demand, however there's the complicating factor that blood can't be stockpiled to any great degree: as I recall the figures are something like 40 days for whole blood (i.e. a standard donation), 9 months for plasma and 1 week for platelets. So when you see ads for blood, the problem isn't so much the total number of people willing to donate, but rather the consistency with which they do so.

Allowing men-who-have-sex-with-men to donate blood might - or might not - sufficiently ameliorate the occasional shortfalls which necessitate blood drives, but it would also place their relatively high-risk blood in the system all the rest of the time when it isn't needed and constitutes an unnecessary risk factor. And allowing MSM to donate merely during those shortfalls would send a rather confusing message, and probably isn't necessary given that the occasional blood drive seems to make up the difference.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I agree that it probably doesn't make much difference for the collectors of blood donations since there just aren't that many gay people but I still think it's an offensive generalisation and it should be up to the individual donor to decide what his personal risk is in giving the donation; sexual preference isn't enough. Maybe ask if he had multiple partners or just ask about unprotected sex without mentioning genders.

eta: sorry for derailing your thread though, all that wasn't really the topic.

 

[Switch]

I still think it's an offensive generalisation and it should be up to the individual donor to decide what his personal risk is in giving the donation; sexual preference isn't enough.

Reality is under no obligation to be PC.

Now, whether it is the reality that MSM are at significantly higher risk than the general population of having blood which is unsuitable for donation is another question entirely. I have no difficulty in believing that the research underpinning this could be out-of-date, or that institutional inertia could be responsible for maintaining this deferral criteria long past its use-by-date.

Folks from the UK aren't allowed to donate blood here either. The risk is infinitesimal, but still outweighs the potential gains of allowing them to, so we don't.

I've been turned down for platelet donation on account of a rash on my right shin so mild you can't even see it except up close. Platelets can only be kept for one week, so in that situation the ratio of needed donors to potential donors is very low. For platelets they can afford to exclude you for anything at all, which is what they did in my case. Same rash? Perfectly acceptable for plasma or whole blood donation.

It's not about the donors, it's about the patients. There is no 'right' to donate blood.