To be a bit miffed I can't give my blood.

[float62]

I've known for some time that I can't donate my much wanted O- blood because I was given blood in 1981 during a life-saving operation and because of the unfounded risks associated with nvCJD. After reading in the news that 0- blood was again in short supply I decided to re-investigate my ability to donate as the nvCJD "epidemic" hadn't materialized as the doomsayers of the mid-90s had pronounced. Through the web I read different dates and thought it would be ok now, it wasn't, nothings changed and I was turned away. I just think it's really silly, the science is completely unproven and had I lied, which I could easily have done, my blood would have been taken. It's not like I'm talking about a handbag or whatever. This is blood, it saves lives, including mine.

I couldn't give blood because my HB was too low.

So I went to GP and she's put me on iron tablets.

And now I can't donate because I'm taking iron supplements.

Go figure!

IKnew: you don't know the sexual history and habits of the people who donated to you. You have your own risk factors multiplied by the number of units of blood you received.

There was a big problem in the 70s-80s with HIV/AIDS before it was isolated, especially for individuals with haemophilia who had a lot of transfusions.

I feel put out too that I can't donate as received a donation after a PPH, however, DH has registered as a donor so I say that he does it for me.

To all those who can and do donate, thank you, I was in a bad way and the donation I received helped me to recover to look after my baby.

I can't give blood at all here in Germany because I lived (and ate!) in the UK during the BSE crisis.

The brits are more than happy to take it though

yes, it's annoying. When I found this out (having waited in the queue for night on an hour before finally seeing the nurse who told me), she said that the blood service would take it but the NHS said no, or something like that. Sounded like the jury was out on how safe it was.

Oh and I know someone who did a sponsored walk and asked for blood donations to NBS instead of money. Something to think about for those who have received in the past maybe?

I really think the reason for transfusion recipients being refused is because of the infinitesimal risk of nvCJD. Honestly, common sense has been thrown out of the window on this one. nvCJD was a 'political' issue at the time which I bemusedly watched unfold from the sidelines just because that's what I do (watch things unfold), not because it's an overly particular interest of mine, I just have diverse interests.

It reminds me of when I had ds in 2001 and was handed free samples of 'Avent' bottles on the ward, I used them for a few days as well as bf only to discover from my HV that neither was working (aagh moment). She said at the time that many HVs found 'Avent' teats weren't suitable for many newborns. I thought WTF! so why are they handed out, why aren't you speaking, why isn't anyone listening to you? I see 12 years later that MN has a campaign on these 'free samples'. Hopefully, this similar blood nonsense can be sorted out sooner.

Um Mrs Hoarder, really thanks for the tip there but I think that's a lot of the angst here. Yes, we have been given blood and yes, we want to give some back. But we can't BECAUSE we have been given blood. Now there's something to think about?

Hmm, I googled it and apparently it applies to all recipients of donated anything and it's because of CJD. How odd. My treatment wasn't even in the UK so the risk must be teeny.

I don't know where you are OP but there is a real reason that you can't donate - you have had a transfusion.

Transfusion recipients are prevented from donating to prevent pyramids of infection from occurring. New pathogens (not just vCJD) can arise at any time, and can be symptomless for many years (like HIV). You are at greater risk than the general population for being infected with an emerging pathogen we don't yet know about because you have had a transfusion. You are also at greater risk for being infected with something we know about but can't test for yet.

If you donate and you are infected with something, and the recipients of your blood went on to donate, you would end up with a pyramid of infection and potentially contribute to a public health crisis as we saw happening with HIV and hepatitis infections from transfusions in the 70s and 80s.

This isn't about your feelings. The Blood Service have a responsibility to minimise the risk of transfusions to recipients - the rule is there for public safety. You would be VU to lie about having had a transfusion, because everybody's safety relies on donors being honest.

Remember that an awful lot of immuno-compromised people receive blood products - why should they be put at any greater risk (however small) so your feelings can be assuaged?

Unfortunately float there are two possibilities regarding vCJD. Possibility a) is that it wasn't nearly as bad as we feared and it's a storm on a teacup. Possibility b) is that the very few people who have developed vCJD are just a first wave, who developed symptoms much quicker because they had a specific genetic sub-type. Nobody knows for certain which hypothesis is correct - there are expert arguments on each side, and the blood transfusion services of the world are unsurprisingly choosing to play it as safe as they can without letting people due for lack of blood (hence everywhere else in the world bans Brits, but the UK transfusion service draws the line at that).

In Ireland if you've lived in the uk (possibly during a set time frame) you can't give blood. However, the time frame covered includes when thousands of Irish people came to the uk for work, so they're banned too even though they're Irish.

Good post FairPhyllis

I'm with fairphylis. There are real, sound reasons for preventing transfusion recipients from donating. Blood donation isn't a service for the donators, to make them feel good, it is a service to support the health of patients. Feeling miffed that your blood is turned away seems to get that the wrong way round. And even thinking very briefly about lying to get past the restrictions is a bit shocking really.

Yes, very well-expressed Phyllis.

Yes Phyllis, that very much needed to be said.

What FairPhyllis said.

It isn't specifically about vCJD as much as what the potential implications of vCJD are for any as yet unknown pathogens. UK blood service rules on this are actually in advance of other countries, precisely because the UK had to think about what would happen if an infectious agent were to be discovered that could be distributed in blood products. Not giving blood if you've had a transfusion is to avoid creating a situation where some possible future infectious agent could be re-donated several times, creating a nightmare for anyone trying to track sources of infection. It is a good thing and a better safeguard than other health services have.

I'm also unable to give blood, the reason being my husband is HIV+ after being given contaminated blood in the 80's. I used to be a regular doner before I met my dh (am 0-) and feel disappointed that I'm not able to donate. I understand why though, but we never take any risks so I'm probably a safer bet than some who are allowed to donate.

Wrt to blood services in foreign countries banning British donors, this is a reasonable measure for them to take, as the number of donors they lose are relatively few. When they weigh that up against the fact that having lived in Britain is a known risk factor for what may still turn out to be massive public health crisis, then it's reasonable that they do everything they can to minimise risk to their own populations.

In Britain however, it's just not realistic to ban everyone born, say, before 1990 (or whatever date) from donating because 1) the Blood Service would collapse if you lost that many potential donors and 2) it's assumed that if we do get a massive vCJD crisis down the line then most of the population are infected by now anyway so it wouldn't make much difference in terms of transmission ...

It's about basic medical ethics - when you are giving blood products to large numbers of very sick people, you have a responsibility to minimise any known risks and any potential problems.

I bet the same people who are complaining about not being able to donate would be very about receiving blood from an injecting drug user who shares needles and lies about their drug use in order to donate ...

I remember after having my twins the doc told me I needed a transfusion. I said I'd rather not if not absolutely necessary as I wanted to be able to continue to give blood.

She lied to me! Told me I'd still be able to donate!

In hindsight, obviously I really needed it, but I do still feel a bit sad when I can't donate.

I believe the CJD link is because it can take many many years to be detectable?

Good post Phyllis. I can't donate because I have a mild form of the blood-clotting disorder DD has. She has had many transfusions and clotting factor infusions over the years.

It is very frustrating and I love that people want to donate but given that it isn't just a one-off I'd rather the screening procedure was as safe as they can make it.

to all of you.

Thank you FairPhyllis that is what I was trying to explain, but more eloquent.

In terms of numbers, if we say that a patient receives 10 units and half of donors are inspired by having received blood themselves (numbers are made up to illustrate the problem. Obviously actual numbers will be different and much worse for mental arithmetic).

At the moment you would have a risk on undetected pathogens (CJD, HIV or something as yet unknown) from 10 people.

If you allow receipients of donations to donate you would have a risk of undetected pathogens from 60 people (the 10 original and the 50 who donated to the 5 who have donated since receiving). Except that assumes its a new rule, otherwise you could have pathogens from 360 people if we're in the second wave, 2160 in the third wave....

A 1 in 10,000 undetected pathogen quickly becomes fairly likely to be in your blood that way.

I know how important blood is and that everyone who has blood that is statistically safe should donate. That's why I do it despite feeling sick at the sight of a needle. And that's why my friend walked 100 miles asking people to donate blood because it saves lives.

Interesting thread.

I went to give blood when I first turned 18. I was turned away because I'd had Hodgkins Disease and chemotherapy when I was 13. I can't remember the exact reason - I think because it was in my liver, and I ticked a box that meant they couldn't take it. I was told at the time that this would remain true all my life, but prompted by this thread I've just googled the list of exclusions and I can't find any mention of anything that might apply to me.

Does anyone know what this might have been ? Have the rules changed? I might go along and try again. I've been all clear for 25 yrs but I do understand they need to be careful.

I have a friend who developed Hep C many years after a blood transfusion she was given after childbirth. Obviously, the blood was considered safe at the time.

She had a year off work, the treatment was extremely debilitating and she is still not in the clear.

I think 'miffed' is the wrong word. It's about the recipient, not the donor. Better safe than sorry.

Me too! Was nearly up to my silver award for donating (20 something donations) but since had transfusion I can't.
I do understand from the transfusion service's point of view though. While only minuscule risk of CJD if they can't test for it, they can't risk even one case occurring that blood Tx cold be implicated in.
I've decided to persuade others to donate to compensate.