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.

Worth checking, treelover as the rules often change. For years I couldn't give blood because of pills I was taking, but now they allow my blood. Obviously rules have to be continually re-thought in accordance with up to date evidence, so changes are a good thing, not grounds for miff or criticism. Coming back to donating after years away I was struck by just how careful everyone is, not only in checking that donated blood is safe but also in taking care of the doners to minimise fainting etc.

Something to think about if you want to donate but are not accepted: is it still possible to bank your own blood for elective surgery? My dad had malaria 50y ago, so was never able to donate again. In order to save banked blood for others, he would do a series of donations before any elective surgery so that, if he needed blood, he wd receive his own blood. Any unused was either binned or given to research labs.

I can't donate on account of my CFS, yes, that illness that many doctors think doesn't even exist at all despite WHO's recommendations, because it might be an autoimmune neurological or viral disorder...

Thymeout good post. It isn't about the giver, it's about the recipient. Blood products have saved my DD's life many times over and she is not terminally ill. Safety matters. I'd hate for her to contract something terrible on top of the clotting-deficiency which she should be able to live a long and happy life having, with correct treatment.

The trouble is, I think the largest group of people knowing about the need for donation and wanting to give back are women of child-bearing years, and because of this, restrictions apply and many are not able to.

DH's business partner is sixty-two and has given blood every month since he was nineteen because he was told that he has a very rare blood type. He is unusual though.

Perhaps some sort of campaign aimed at the partners of pregnant women might work?

Great and thought provoking thread, nice to see some science and stats. I cannot give as have received . I am forever grateful for those kind souls who ensured pints of A positive were there when I needed it.

full fridge that is a really interesting idea.

Fullfridge thats really interesting - I wonder if that would or could ever become commonplace for elective surgeries. Aside from anything, surely it could cut the infection risk even more? You cant infect yourself with something...

I was given a transfusionin 1989 while 8 months pregnant with DD1, which mean nether of us can donate, neither can my other two children who I have since had.

treehouse You almost certainly can't donate because you've had a form of blood cancer. Even if you've been clear of it for many years there is still a theoretical risk that you could pass cancer cells to a recipient of your blood. There are a couple of exceptions for cancers which don't metastasise (e.g. basal cell skin cancer) - people who have had those can donate once their treatment is over.

The rules can and do get changed if the risk level is deemed to have changed or can be mitigated - e.g. men who have had sex with men can now donate if they haven't done so within the last 12 months because screening for HIV is now considered good enough to reliably detect infections that are older than 12 months.

It's also about public confidence in the treatment you receive - it would be dreadful to end up with a situation where people were distrustful of having transfusions because it was known the blood service hadn't learned anything from the HIV/hepatitis fuck-up.

notallytuts I think it is normal procedure in some countries. I can't remember where, though! But what I do remember is more than one person telling me that when they had had elective surgery in their home countries they had had to make blood donations theirselves beforehand.

I cant give blood because I'm latex allergic. The staff at the donor centre apparently may not have the skills to save me even though they use non latex materials now. They wouldn't be insured if I had to use my adrenaline pen !

Thanks FairPhyllis. You were spot on.

Prompted by this thread I just decided to give them a ring to make sure I haven't been wasting years of opportunity. Sure enough the guidelines on Hodgkins haven't changed and the lady I spoke to said that it is to do with the cancer, and in fact the chemo would probably prohibit me too.

I'm really glad I checked though. It's been 21 years since I first tried and I've had a nagging doubt for ages that I really ought to make sure so now I have.

For anyone else who wants to do the same, I just rang 0300 123 23 23 and they were very helpful. My mission now is to go out and find someone to persuade to give blood!

I've donated blood in the past, but am no longer eligible having had an early stage melanoma removed.

I wasn't particularly surprised that my blood was no longer wanted, but I was quite surprised that I would also be ineligible to make organ donations.

Perhaps I can be cut up by medical students still.

I think we need to ensure the younger generations are inspired to give blood.

I've seen stats showing that numbers for the youngest group of people (age 17-25) are dropping off quite sharply, and this doesn't bode well for the future when the older generations have to stop giving.

I am working on DD and DS, to hopefully encourage them to go when old enough, but perhaps it's time to generate publicity in schools, etc to bring to the attention of the youngsters.

My husband can't give blood as he has ME.

I've never donated blood because I hate needles but after reading this thread I realise that isnt a good enough excuse and am now looking up how to and where in my town.

My dad has regularly given blood for over 30 years, and has an extremely rare blood type. He now goes to a special unit out of town to donate platelets, and is told how much he has given in terms of babies ie 2 babies worth of blood. He loves this and is always showing off his gold medals and how he's going to be on Jesus' top table when he dies (cos he's weird like that)!

I'm in the same situation. O- and have to have blood tranfusions during and after giving birth to my ds. I find it slightly concerning that they were happy to give it to me but dont want it back

had to have..

funghoul - if you are struggling with phobia have a word with the gp, I got all my help from tge nhs which has helped hugely

I am currently pregnant through egg donation, so does that mean I will no longer be able to give blood? I can only do it on trips back to the UK anyway as here, as an ex-resident of the UK for that certain period, they can't accept my blood.

What about donating marrow? There is a big campaign here at the moment to donate marrow for leukaemia sufferers so will this rule me out as well?

Notyomomma - might just do that. Have looked it up and you have to wait 6 months after giving birth to donate. I only had dd 3 months ago, so that gives me time to get some help. Thank you, didn't think of speaking to doctor weirdly enough, thought it would be dismissed as me being silly.

Woodhead Cancer patients can't donate organs (or bone marrow) for the same reasons they can't donate blood.

Transplant recipients are at much higher risk than the general population for developing cancer anyway because they take immuno-supressing drugs for life - their immune systems would be even less likely to be able to destroy transplanted cancer cells than an otherwise healthy person who received some cancerous cells through a transfusion.

Thanks FairPhyllis , I realised that in retrospect. I suppose I'd erroneously thought that transplant organs were so short in supply, that perhaps slight risks would be considered case by case, but of course the suppressed immunity makes it sensless.

*The trouble is, I think the largest group of people knowing about the need for donation and wanting to give back are women of child-bearing years, and because of this, restrictions apply and many are not able to.
*

Is this really the case? At the donation centre I go to, I'd say it was about 75% men between the ages of 30-60! They do give good biscuits, though, maybe that's why

A lot of women have needed transfusions during or after chikdbirth and are therefore precluded from donating. Hence the fact there are more men at donation centres.

The ban on allowing people to donate blood if they had received blood transfusions after 1980 was introduced to prevent an epidemic of nvCJD. The fact that there has not been an epidemic (although Britain has recorded vastly more deaths from nvCJD than any other country in the world and we did have endemic BSE in our cattle population) does not mean the ban was an over-reaction. It might mean the ban worked rather well.

Children no longer get diptheria or polio either. It doesn't mean vaccinating everyone was an over-reaction - one may have caused the other.