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.

Thanks FairPhyllis for explaining that. I have often wondered with both being a Brit abroad and having had a transfusion what the issues were. I have a question if anyone has a moment to answer. I received multiple transfusions a couple of years ago. I was perfectly healthy until the haemmorage which led to the transfusions. Since then I have caught every cold and chest bug going. Is it possible that I am still weakened from the injury two years on, or could it be that the donors' blood has weakened me iyswim (not that I am complaining, I'd rather be weak than dead, but am just curious)?

Slightly off track, but I developed epilepsy 3 years ago, they (eventually) found the right combo of drugs and I've been seizure free for a year. Despite this I'm no longer allowed to give blood. Does anybody know why? I did ask, but the staff at the centre were very busy and seemed a bit vague about the reasons.

I'm in the same boat. Had two blood transfusions. I had no idea that it meant i couldn't donate.

I've donated my entire body to a medical school upon my death instead. Makes up for it i think!

www.hta.gov.uk/bodyorganandtissuedonation/howtodonateyourbody.cfm

If you're interested!

I have epilepsy too cowmop. I was told it is because after they take your blood your blood volume falls (no shit!) and consequently your serum levels of AEDs will fall and you'll be at greater risk of a seizure. Looking after people having a seizure in recovery afterwards would be a hassle for them and a hassle for you too if it meant you lost your driving licence etc.

Having said that I've known people with epilepsy be told different things. But I think the bottom line is they really don't want someone having a seizure on their hands, they run a tight ship at most donation centres.

Thanks Penelope, I assumed it would be something to do with volume. Still a bit of a shame though.

hmm the thing with the pyramid....I can't really buy into it.

So there is a risk of MNitis out there...it is undetected and you won't know you have it till you die suddenly in 20 years time.

it is blood born and 1:1000000 people have it....so you already have a 1:1000000 chance of having it (unknowingly).

So you are big time ill with something else...and are offered a transfusion.

You accept. Now you have just under a 2:1000000 chance of carrying MNitis.

If you accept a blood donation from someone who has already been given a donation , then your risk goes up to 3:1000000 chance of having MNitis instead. So your chances of infection are 1 in a million higher for the donor-donor blood.

If you are lying on the operating table with your heart failing, do you actually care about the difference in risk of 1:1000000 between these?

I understand the spread problem but you could keep donor-donor blood in reserve...if you are desperate you really don't care about the tiny added risk...

I had this problem with donating BM.

For seriously premature babies the risk of fatal NEC is high (maybe as high as 1:3). Around 1000 die a year. BM can has been shown to reduce the rate of NEC by around a factor of 10 over FM. Hence donating BM is a GOOD IDEA.

There are people wanting donated BM that can't get it for their babies.

I wanted to donate BM and was refused because I had had a transfusion. Obviously the pyramid argument fails here (newborns aren't donating BM onwards).

If I was a mother staring at the ugly end of a 1:3 chance of fatal NEC, I think I would accept the extra 1:1000000 risk of vCJD that came with donated milk from a transfusion receiver...

Also...there is no evidence that vCJD can be passed through milk...so you know double

Bear in mind that many people will recieve more than one unit of blood ICBINEG - so you're not doubling your risk, you're quadrupling it - or worse if you have a condition that requires repeated transfusions. Where do you draw the line?

but that's true when you take blood from the general population too...

so you still only just under double the risk when you take donor-donor blood over what happens if you don't regardless of how many units you use.

they never tell you that when you are on the receiving end though...

they say 'very small risks of blah, blah and blah' but they don't say oh and multiply that by the number of units your having....

They also don't tell you not to BF if you have had a transfusion...which feels a little hypocritical to me.

You know, like my BM is good enough for my DD but not for anyone else...

ICBINEG: I wasn't asked about a transfusion when I volunteered to donate BM. I've just checked the form I had to send back (I wasn't able to in the end, for other reasons).

As for the "pyramid", its actually an exponential growth in risk.

So if we go with 1:1,000,000, a average 5 unit donation and a 20% donors of donors being previous recipients rate then the risk rapidly rises above 50%. The problem is it isn't donor-donor blood, its donor-donor-donor-...-donor blood. Especially if people who have had donations are more likely to donate.

I've put a table below showing how the risk increases:

wave people's blood 1:1m risk
0# 10# 0.00001
1# 22# 0.00002
2# 46# 0.00005
3# 94# 0.00009
4# 190# 0.00019
5# 382 #0.00038
6# 766# 0.00077
7# 1534# 0.00153
8# 3070# 0.00307
9# 6142# 0.00612
10# 12286# 0.01221
11# 24574# 0.02427
12# 49150# 0.04796
13# 98302# 0.09362
14# 196606# 0.17849
15# 393214# 0.32512
16# 786430# 0.54453
17# 1572862# 0.79255

Where people's blood is how many different people's blood is in your body, so if you received 10 units from non-recipients then its 10. And I've just spotted a mistake in my numbers. The actual numbers should be slightly higher:

wave# people's blood# 1:1m risk
0# 10# 0.00001
1# 28# 0.00003
2# 64# 0.00006
3# 136# 0.00014
4# 280 # 0.00028
5# 568# 0.00057
6# 1144# 0.00114
7# 2296 # 0.00229
8# 4600# 0.00459
9# 9208 # 0.00917
10# 18424# 0.01826
11# 36856# 0.03619
12# 73720# 0.07107
13# 147448# 0.13709
14# 294904# 0.25540
15# 589816# 0.44557
16# 1179640# 0.69261
17# 2359288# 0.90551

What I wouldn't do for an edit button at this point. I put 10 units average donation in my spreadsheet... Sorry about that.

New pathogens are being discovered pretty much constantly. It's impossible to screen blood for what you don't yet know is there. At the moment they screen blood and screen people for what they do know, and we should be happy about that. 'Miffed' isn't really an appropriate word.

As for HIV, actually there has been a marked rise in male to male infections in the past couple of years: sadly it is a disease of gay men once again, largely due to a newer generation of men not having been terrorised by the many deaths of friends that older men have witnessed. It's not a lack of political correctness: these rules come about because people look at the numbers, study behaviour and consult widely. They don't pluck the restrictions out of thin air.

I am O- and cant give blood for the same reasons but dd not gives blood in my places she is the same blood type so she is doing a good thing OP dont beat yourself up about it honestly there is nothing you can do ,

I can no longer donate due to a blood transfusion after a miscarriage. I'm pleased to say I have donated more in the past than I was given so feel I'm still in credit! Am working on my hubby to donate on my behalf instead!

It's true as someone has said above that actually new infections of HIV are becoming more prevalent in the male gay community. Also, as someone who has had to receive blood I am glad there are strict rules, it means I am less likely to have contacted something. It is a shame I can no longer donate though.

Contracted, not contacted.

Yeah, it's the exponential growth in risk that's the problem. You quite quickly end up with rather high odds of getting infected with MNitis (!) if you allow successive recipient donations. They'll have statisticians and will have modelled this very accurately.

Also I'm not sure exactly how they put together units of blood products - it's possible that sometimes when you receive a transfusion or other blood product like platelets that you might be receiving from more than one person at a time. And of course for many people having a transfusion is not a one-off - lots of people have to have regular transfusions.

Basically, if you can run a blood service without using people who have had a transfusion - which they do manage to do despite occasional shortages - then it's better to do so. It's better to concentrate on getting new donors in as so few of the population who can donate do - and to get more Asian and Afro-Caribbean donors.

I used to always give blood, but cants because of a transfusion after having DD. My blood group is AB+ which they were always quite happy to receive too.

I'm on the bone marrow registry though, so maybe someday I can help someone with that

Sorry if this was covered earlier in the thread. As the recipient of a blood transfusion does that mean my organs won't be wanted after I depart?

They won't take blood from me because I had a tendency to faint a few years ago - haven't fainted for years but they still said no as donating blood can make one more prone to fainting. I felt quite rejected!

Oh I wasn't disputing the pyramid could exist or that the risk would spread rapidly...just that if you were desperate you wouldn't care if the person donating was a previous transfusion receiver. You could then not donate yourself...

basically it would mean having a emergency stock. If you took from the emergency stock you really would be banned from donating.

None of this should apply to BM and for some reason it does..

But I didn't think we had at any point actually run out of blood recently. Got close and the NBS had to courier extra blood to areas with low stocks, but not actually run out. So people aren't being that desperate.

Also rules need to be practical. So its quite easy to ask someone if they have ever had a blood transfusion, they are less likely to be confident as to which stock it came from.

As for BM: again you've got a multiplier effect: presumably any one receiving baby gets milk from several milk donors. The problem is that if the hospital is offering it has to be proven to be orders of magnitude safer than the alternative.

mrshoarder it is orders of magnitude safer...that has already been proven.