Blood Donation & Remuneration

[trampledamage]

I'm not sure if getting money for it would make any difference to me donating. It probably would have got me paying more attention to donating regularly at college when I could definitely do with the extra money - but also I agree with the fact that paying out money will just make the whole process more expensive and that's bound to have a knock-on effect somewhere in the process.

It's all a moot point for me now because I'm not allowed to donate Canadians won't take my blood because I lived in Britain during the eighties (risk of BSE) and the British won't let me donate when I go over for holidays because you have to have been out of Canada for something like 6 weeks before you can donate during the summer (risk of West Nile)

*sigh*

 

[Roger Wilco]

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 I have no difficulty in believing that the research underpinning this could be out-of-date, or that institutional inertia could be responsible for maintaining this deferral criteria long past its use-by-date.

My point is, the risk for "MSM" as you call it, is not in having sex with men, but having unprotected sex with multiple men, I can't imagine why a gay man in a stable, faithful relationship would have a higher risk of contracting sexually transmissible diseases than a random hetero man, so excluding all gay men kind of implies they all fuck strangers all the time. No, there's no right to donate blood, and yes, the patient comes first, but I can see why gay men would be offended by that policy.

 

[Surfin' Santa]

. . . 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.

Remunerated blood donation is fairly common in the U.S., although, as previously pointed out, most of our blood supply comes from unpaid volunteer donors. In fact, selling blood is often the subject of jokes -- along with “deposits” and “withdrawals” from blood banks, usually in connection with vampires.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've always donated blood for free; it used to be easy when I worked in a hospital, but now I do it less frequently because it's hard to make the arrangements. If they started paying for blood, I'd just continue to donate for free, but there's no poll option for that.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

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.

Yup, always had something to squeeze. Didn't help enough.

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.

Thank you, Switch, and don't worry about the foot. If I hadn't been comfortable answering, I would've just ignored your question. And, actually, you've given me an idea...

I'd already been planning to do something -- either on the first anniversary, or after the trial's over -- to symbolize / ritualize / whatever my moving on with my life. I'm going to make donating blood part of that.

(I guess I should say I'm going to try donating. But borderline hypertension ought to be good for something, you know? )

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Last time I donated blood, the person in the chair behind passed out while I was waiting to start. It seems that every time they visit my law school, there's always a couple of people who pass out. Thankfully, I've never had a problem (although the last time, they did have to raise my legs and do the whole damp cloth thing).

 

[bigdaddy]

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 that's fucking bullshit.

Gays are not anymore likely to have an STD than anyone else! Whores can give blood, they are WHORES! No issues.

The blood should be screened no matter what!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm pretty sure those who have literally exchanged sex for money are banned as well. As are those who have been in the UK before 1995 and a whole bunch of other things.

 

[Switch]

Gays are not anymore likely to have an STD than anyone else!

I don't know how MSM work anywhere else, but in Australia they make up 75% of HIV diagnoses despite constituting three-fifths of fuck all of the population.

Whores can give blood, they are WHORES! No issues.

I doubt it.

The blood should be screened no matter what!

The window period for HIV is rather longer than blood can actually be stored for.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Whores can give blood, they are WHORES! No issues.

The blood should be screened no matter what!

Yes, bigdaddy, it's a big issue. The American Red Cross blood donor criteria exclude anyone who has ever exchanged sex for money, drugs, etc., and anyone who has had sex w/ such a person in the last 12 months.

And the blood is screened no matter what.

 

[Kestra]

It's supposedly inadvisable for me to donate due to a genetic condition, so I don't. Well, that and the fact that I get a blood test done nearly once a month and I'm really sick of getting jabbed with needles. Money wouldn't make a difference unless I was really in desperate times, I'd think.

 

[Jadzia]

Gays are not anymore likely to have an STD than anyone else! Whores can give blood, they are WHORES! No issues.

The blood should be screened no matter what!

Policies are slow to change. Realise that if there was a change of policy, and a few months down the line some person got an auto-immune disease from a transfusion, that would make the headlines.

Incidents like that probably would happen (and probably do happen already) because diseases cannot be screened with 100% reliability. It would just bring it under the media spotlight.

Politicians who want to hold onto their seats wouldn't go there.

 

[Switch]

My point is, the risk for "MSM" as you call it, is not in having sex with men, but having unprotected sex with multiple men, I can't imagine why a gay man in a stable, faithful relationship would have a higher risk of contracting sexually transmissible diseases than a random hetero man, so excluding all gay men kind of implies they all fuck strangers all the time.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Think about it: a man who has sex with men is a man who has sex with a man who has sex with men. The last question in the 'sexual history' section of the questionnaire I fill out each time is something like "have you had sex with anyone in the last twelve months who you think would answer 'yes' to any of the previous questions?" Now, when I say 'no' to that question that's not because I can be 100% sure that the chick I met at the bar last week (clearly we're into entirely hypothetical territory here ) isn't actually a prostitute in her on-hours, but rather I'm reasonably confident that she isn't, and the Red Cross can be reasonably confident that I'm telling the truth. In other words, the risk factors - including the probability that I'm lying or don't know what I'm talking about - propagate through to generate an overall risk factor.

For MSMs, who are working with a base HIV incidence rate an entire order-of-magnitude greater than non-MSMs, by the time you propagate the various risk factors through - including those associated with one's partners - the total risk that the MSM has recently acquired an HIV infection which won't be picked up by the screening process is probably several thousand times greater than for non-MSMs.

 

[6079SmithW]

I try to donate whenever I can, which is usually when the Red Cross does a blood drive on campus. They really like my blood and say its very "rich." I guess that's a good thing. Regarding the "MSM" issue brought up here, donating blood is one of those things where my virginity is very helpful, since I can just say "no" to any and all questions regarding sexual activity.

 

[DrCorby]

In college, I used to donate plasma for money. And it was scary to see the assortment of people wanting to donate for cash. I always hoped their screening process was very reliable.

Now I donate whole blood regularly, for free. (I was inspired by a high school counselor, who had donated gallons of blood by the time I met him. I just passed 3 gallons of blood donations, myself.) My company makes it easier, by hosting drives where the Red Cross sets up in our building, and letting people have breaks to go donate.

Whores can give blood, they are WHORES! No issues.

The blood should be screened no matter what!

Yes, bigdaddy, it's a big issue. The American Red Cross blood donor criteria exclude anyone who has ever exchanged sex for money, drugs, etc., and anyone who has had sex w/ such a person in the last 12 months.

And the blood is screened no matter what.

As others have said, there are LOTS of criteria that can exclude a donor, because we've learned that lots of bad things can linger in the blood for a long time. And the incubation period for HIV can be longer than the blood's shelf life. Yes, any male who's had sex with another male is excluded, due to the higher incidence of HIV in the gay community, even after all the "safe sex" education efforts. Sex workers, as well as their clients, as excluded. Heck, even a lot of ex-military folks can't donate, due to various innoculations they may have received. And many medical personnel are likewise prohibited, due to accidental needle sticks they receive that might contain HIV or hepatitis. There's a long questionaire I have to fill out every time I donate.

I know someone who contracted HIV due to a blood transfusion he received as a child. So keeping the blood supply as safe as possible IS a critical issue. bigdaddy, I applaud your desire to volunteer and be involved. Even if you can't donate, you can help out with blood drives passing out water and orange juice to donors, and assisting folks feeling woozy.

 

[David cgc]

Gays are not anymore likely to have an STD than anyone else!

I don't know how MSM work anywhere else, but in Australia they make up 75% of HIV diagnoses despite constituting three-fifths...

That's a lot.

...of fuck all of the population.

Oh, I see what you did there.

I donate for free (well, sort of. Do free movie tickets and restaurant gift-cards count as "remuneration?" I never take the t-shirt, though), though not as often as I'd like. Due to what I can only assume is embarrassingly clean living, I was informed that I tested as CMV-negative, so I'm now immensely paranoid about donating while sick since my blood gets prioritized for babies and people with no immune system. I so much as have a itch in the throat and I put it off.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I am not sure how to vote.

I was a blood donor for many years but occasionally the Red Cross would refuse to take my blood because the preliminary test showed a low iron count. Finally I had three low iron counts in a row and the Red Cross decided I wasn't a suitable blood donor because of my anemia.

No-one in Australia gets paid for their blood donation.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Canada has the same rule about MSM, though I believe it's under review. I gave blood a couple of times in university when I was still a virgin, but had to stop. And in Canada, there's no remuneration for blood donation.

I always had a problem anyway - my blood appears to flow very slowly, and it always took me about two or three times longer to finish than anyone else. Though there may have been a particular reason for that:

I am not sure how to vote.

I was a blood donor for many years but occasionally the Red Cross would refuse to take my blood because the preliminary test showed a low iron count. Finally I had three low iron counts in a row and the Red Cross decided I wasn't a suitable blood donor because of my anemia.

Until about a year ago, I had the opposite problem. I suddenly started having fainting spells, and after many tests, the doctors determined that I had a genetic condition called hemachromatosis, where the ferritin (i.e. iron) level in the blood is too high. The top end of the normal range is 400 nanograms per cubic millilitre, and I was at 963.

The cure? Taking blood. Every week, I had to go to the hospital and let them take a pint of blood. Presumably they disposed of it immediately because even if I weren't gay, they wouldn't want to give someone my blood due to the abnormally high iron content.

After a few months of that, they came to me and said, "Um, your hemoglobin's not supposed to be dropping this fast. We think we were wrong - we don't know what you have, but it's not hemachromatosis. So we're going to stop treating you - otherwise you'll end up anemic."

My doctor had wanted to get my ferritin down to 100 ng/ml^3, but when they stopped the treatments, it was around 216.

As a result, I expect that even if they start allowing MSM to give blood here again, they probably still won't want mine.

 

[Miss Chicken]

My late brother-in-law had hemachromatosis. Unfortunately it wasn't discovered that he was suffering from it until there was serious damage to his liver i.e liver cancer which ended up spreading to his bones and brain.

I gather your hemachromatosis has been discovered before any serious damage has been done?

 

[farmkid]

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?

This is an important distinction that I think many in the thread have missed. Donating plasma is not the same as donating blood. When one donates plasma, it takes 2-3 hours and they generally get paid for it. Plasma is used to make drugs and other treatments; it is not given to patients directly. Donating plasma is a commercial activity. Donating blood, however, is generally a volunteer thing and that blood is used directly to treat patients. I've never heard of anyone being paid to donate blood. Likewise, I've never heard of anyone not being paid to donate plasma. I'm hardly an expert on it, but I do know a lot of people who do both.

As for myself, I don't donate because I can't. I spent two years in England from 1993-1995 and that disqualifies me from donating any blood products.