to wonder why my breast milk is good enough for my baby but not for anyone else's?

[entropygirl]

I wanted to donate breast milk but found out I would be disqualified due to having a blood transfusion after labour. Noone ever suggested to me that I should not breast feed because of the transfusion, so it seems my milk is safe for my baby but not safe for anyone else's baby. This seems outrageous to me! If breast milk is such an asset, particularly for prem babies, then why disqualify people based on the stupidly tiny chance of blood transfusion generated vCJD when there is not even any evidence the disease can be transmitted through milk?

By that measure none of us should breastfeed as we could potentially be passing down contagions carried in our blood.

The Op hasn't answered the question as to whether she was informed of the tiny risk but I assume whether she was or not she had some prior knowledge of the risks and she chose to breastfeed. Her baby; her choice what risks to take. We all take risks with our children, many of them risks that not everyone would agree with. However that choice cannot be made on behalf of a third party, in this case an already unwell premature baby.

The restrictions on donating are there to ensure that a contagion cannot re-enter the system and infect multiple patients. It is a restriction as opposed to a prevention. Although the chances of a donator having vCJD are remote, it has happened and strict protocols need to be put in place to ensure that if it were to happen again the damage is minimised as far as possible.

Sorry above made no sense! I meant:

If the person who had given you the blood, wanted to donate milk they could.

The OP has said she wasn't informed of any risks to her own baby.

"The Op hasn't answered the question as to whether she was informed of the tiny risk"

She has said twice that nobody said anything to her.

"I assume whether she was or not she had some prior knowledge of the risks and she chose to breastfeed. Her baby; her choice what risks to take."

How can she choose whether or not to take a risk if she is unaware of it?

Yes of course yabu.

Because mothers who have to rely on donated breastmilk have no idea where that breastmilk has come from. They have no idea that the woman donating it might have had a blood transfusion and been exposed to life-threatening illnesses, however tiny the chance. And mothers who are relying on donated breastmilk for their babies already have tiny, seriously ill babies who might die anyway. To suggest that it's ok to increase the chance of those babies dying by giving them your donated breastmilk is frankly selfish beyond any reason.

You are well aware that you had a blood transfusion. Your baby was full term and not ill, so the issues there don't apply in the same way. And you were able to make a conscious choice to breastfeed your baby knowing you'd had a blood transfusion.

I also think that the financial line is not right. If OPs baby did contract vCJD from her milk, and she got it from the blood, and the hospital had not told her of the risk after the transfusion, then that's not good, is it.

Presumably if a patient is HIV positive, they warn them that it can be passed through breast milk to the baby? According to summerrain's logic they shouldn't bother, but I's sure they do. In fact I'm sure they test for HIV when you have your antenatal checks unless you opt out. And if you opt out I bet they talk to you about the risks.

"And you were able to make a conscious choice to breastfeed your baby knowing you'd had a blood transfusion."

How many people in the normal population are aware that blood transfusion carries risk of vCJD, and that it can be passed through in breast milk and therefore expose them to a fatal disease?

Wouldn't it be better if the HCPs had mentioned this to her after the procedure, knowing (as they would have known) that she intended to BF?

At the various breastfeeding talks I had when I was pregnant with DD1m I don't remember anyone mentioning risks if you had a blood transfusion.

I think it is unreasonable to expect the general population to be aware of this, and reasonable to expect HCPs to advise of the risks where appropriate.

I understand why they have disqualified you but it seems absurd that if there is a risk you weren't advised in relation to your own child.

Can someone explain to me why If person A donates blood blood to person B, person A can donate their milk but Person B can't?

I am not being arsey I genuinely don't understand? Am I missing something?

If person A is considered healthy enough to donate their blood, does it then become contaminated on entering person B?

so really all you can do is scan person A and Person B at the time of donation of milk/blood

I don't think you can test for vCJD lola

And yes that is a good point, it isn't logical at all.

Perhaps the hospital would have to declare it; that your milk carries a slight risk. I wouldn't imagine that there would be much take up for it, no mother would willingly accept the risk for that baby.

The same risk exists for your own baby but you are its parent and can assume that risk if you choose, so that's probably why you're 'permitted' to breastfeed and the hospital couldn't stop you anyway.

Don't feel badly about it, many people have had transfusions and been refused for giving blood also based on infinitessimal risks.

"The same risk exists for your own baby but you are its parent and can assume that risk if you choose,"

But they didn't tell her about the risk, so the choice she made wasn't informed.

It doesn't make any sense.

If there is a risk, she should have been told. I am sure that there would be women who would opt to FF is they had a transfusion and were told there was a risk of vCJD being passed in their milk.

I've BF three babies all after having a transfusion. No one has ever mentioned any sort of risk to me.

There seems to be a gap in NHS procedure here, doesn't there

Lola in your scenario, person B could not donate blood any more either, having been in receipt of donated blood. If person A needed blood, objectively person B's would be fine, but how logically would they track down person B to donate in a rush?

lola and duchesse I think it depends on whether people are around who have contracted Vcjd in ways other than through blood transfusion?

lola because they are saying that person B's blood and milk may be contaminated, as they have had a transfusion from person A

But person A is still free to donate blood and milk

So it's a bit illogical

Seems a horrible waste of milk and blood (that would be donated) both vital to the NHS :(

This is not illogical at all. While I appreciate your worries, YABU.

There is a tiny theoretical risk that any of us could be carrying vCJD.

We may be able to pass this on in our blood and breastmilk (again this is all pretty theoretical).

There is currently no test for vCJD in the blood.

The vanishingly tiny risk of passing on vCJD in breastmilk is completely outweighed by the massive known benefits to mother and baby of breastfeeding.

If you have been given a blood transfusion (a procedure which is never done lightly), there is a theoretical risk that your risk of vCJD is higher.

There is still no test for vCJD.

As the risk is (very slightly) higher and other breastmilk donors are available, it is better to give these very tiny and very sick babies milk from the lowest risk (there is no such thing as a no risk) donor.

In the same way, here in the UK, we advise mothers with HIV not to breastfeed as there is a tiny risk that they could transmit the virus by their breastmilk. In developing countries, however, women with HIV are advised to breastfeed because the risks of transmitting HIV are outweighed by the real risks of using formula where there is no clean water.

There is another concern about vCJD. When they do develop a test for it, all blood donors will need to be screened and then refused if they have a positive blood test. Being a child of the eighties, I think it is impossible that I didn't eat contaminated meat and so must have been put at risk. As yet, there is no treatment or benefit to knowing your blood test is positive for it (or indeed no way of knowing just how many people will actually develop it who have a positive blood test), so I don't want to know the result of my blood test, so I will end up stopping giving blood, I think.

OK so if I understand this the reason why the donater can continue to give blood and not the one who has been donated to is that we all have 1x chance of having VCJD but once we take a transfusion we multipy our chances by however many people who have donated blood because they wern't actually checked?

OK I accept that. Thanks for explaining couldn't get it in my head

Bartlet so what about this scenario

A woman had a blood transfusion a few years ago
She has a premature baby

Now according to your scenario, the HCPs should decline her breast milk and feed the baby milk from a donor who has not had a blood transfusion.

Does that happen? I'm guessing not but happy to be enlightened.

I also think that not telling women who have had blood transfusions about the risk to their babies, as the HCP has done a risk assessment and decided that it is better to BF even with the risk, is appalling. Women should have the information to make the decision for themselves.

In the third world are women not told about the risk of passing HIV, or are they told about the risk but told it is lower than that of formula? If the former I think that is appalling to. HCPs withholding this information from mothers because "they know best" what is good for her baby is just utterly shit.

BartletforAmerica - I totally agree - if there is lower risk milk then go for it, but given the demand for donors I dont think thats the case. Also there have been 4 cases in 13 years and 24 million units of blood of transmitted vCJD so the difference in risk between me and the next person is vanishingly small. If the increase in risk is acceptable for my baby then it should be acceptable across the board.
Again, prem babies are not any more or less susceptible to vCJD so thats not the issue.
Also again I totally accept that given a choice you would pick other milk over mine - but would you pick formula over my milk? I didn't but then I didn't have this information at the time.
ps. love the name!