Blood, Platelet & Marrow Donation. Women sidelined?

[IsmellSwell]

Is saying that 'Caucasian women are no longer allowed to become marrow donors being sexist in anyway?
www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/news-and-media/news-articles/news_2016_03_22.asp

This is in addition to some female blood donors (of particular blood groups) also being told their services are 'no longer required' by NHS blood transfusion services, but they still require men of that blood group.

Why is it, when there's a surplus of anything, or if they want to cut back on a certain group, it is nearly always WOMEN who seem to be affected?

I've heard that some see their policies as bordering on homophobic (until recently wouldn't take blood from any gay man, regardless of his history) but I hadn't realized they were sexist as well.

What do you think?

Can't help thinking that women are seen as second class citizens.

[VestalVirgin]

As long as they don't ''pay'' men for donating blood or bone marrow, (which I think only private organisations do?) I fail to see how that's a problem?

Like, I actually think it's great.

If the schools issued a statement that the unpaid emotional labour of our daughters is no longer needed, and they will, from now on, just place a rowdy boy next to a calmer boy (and not a girl, as they used to) to stop him from being disruptive, I would call that good news!

Likewise if there was a declaration that all women can now go on a long vacation, as the quota for women's unpaid household labor has been met, and they only need more unpaid ''male'' work.


Yeah, like, never gonna happen.

But as a woman who suffers from anemia, I think it's great news that patriarchy will voluntarily stop sucking our blood ... at least in the literal sense.

[OnceMoreIntoTheBleach]

nocool for some reason, I felt the need to state the obvious on this particular thread

[nocoolnamesleft]

Only women can develop ovarian and only men prostate cancer.

Bloody hell, you TERF, you!

Seriously, I do think this particular issue is more about biology, clinical requirements, and limited resources, rather than discrimination.

[OzzieFem]

When I was a blood donor over here in Oz, I was told that preferred blood transfusions for sick neonates or premmies, was female.

[OnceMoreIntoTheBleach]

There is certainly a body of evidence that shows that people react differently to drugs. Sometimes these reactions can be grouped. So, for example, people with red hair require more anaesthesia and red haired men in middle age don't develop immunity in response to hepatitis b (I think) vaccine.

of course! And there is also an abundance of data to show that women or men are more likely to suffer from certain diseases. E.g big can develop breast cancer but women are of course more likely. Only women can develop ovarian and only men prostate cancer.

The academics, physicians and pharma companies who develop drugs and trial them are aware of this and design their trials accordingly.

The regulatory bodies are also aware of this, and look for data in the target population before they would consider approving the drug.

Honestly think some of you are clutching at straws trying to stir up a feminist debate over clinical/biological decisions.

[grimbletart]

There is evidence that some medicines have different efficacy, effectiveness or side effects in women to men.

For example:

www.aafp.org/afp/2009/1201/p1254.html

[OnceMoreIntoTheBleach]

I work with different clinical trial data daily, and I can say for sure that if a drug is aimed at a disorder that happens only or primarily in women, it will undergo clinical trials in a reflective population.

There may be phase 1 or 2 trials testing general safety, pharmacokinetics and dosing in the general population which may include men just to assess the effects of the drug on a healthy body. Also, some drugs (e.g. cancer drugs) can be effective in more than one disease, so they can use safety data from a broader population to inform future trial development in specific niche populations. If they then find it is useful for female-specific disease, they will sub-analyse the female trial population and/or design a new female-only trial.

But no drug would ever be approved for use in women unless it had been shown tolerable and efficacious in phase 3 trials including a sufficient proportion of or exclusively women! If it is a female-only disease!

[BarbarianMum]

There is certainly a body of evidence that shows that people react differently to drugs. Sometimes these reactions can be grouped. So, for example, people with red hair require more anaesthesia and red haired men in middle age don't develop immunity in response to hepatitis b (I think) vaccine. Don't know that it's as simple as division along sex lines.

[WhiskyTangoFoxtrot]

There is a growing body of evidence that women do react differently to medicine"

A simpler version of my rather waffly question above: does that make any significantly less effective?

[Movingonmymind]

Certain medications meant to say.

[Movingonmymind]

Onemore- how so?

There is a growing body of evidence that women do react differently to medicine from men. No time to do any links as at work !

[WhiskyTangoFoxtrot]

"they have been presumed to be equally effective for women"

Genuine question: is there any drug that has ever been shown to have a significantly different effect in each sex? Obviously I don't mean treatments for conditions linked to biological sex, but the actual safety and effectiveness for a condition.

Because whereas I can see that drugs might have to be given in different doses (weight and adult/child regimes), I don't remember ever hearing of one that worked differently in adults by sex.

Though of course there is so much stuff about the potential in future to tailor drugs to the specific individual, then sex might be one factor in that. But how much is it already happening?

[OnceMoreIntoTheBleach]

However, women of any age are often generally excluded from clinical trials for fear of accidentally causing harm to an unborn foetus. This brings into question the efficacy of many drug treatments for women- tested on men, they have been presumed to be equally effective for women. That is a feminist issue.

sorry but that's rubbish.

[BarbarianMum]

If (white) women make up 60% of those on the registered then women are hardly being sidelined, are they? The Anthony Nolan Trust has been trying to increase the number of BME donors and men on the register for years because they are under-represented. That's a good thing surely?

[almondpudding]

I don't see how this is a feminist issue.

I do wish they would just say white if that's what they mean.

Caucasian and Asian are not mutually exclusive categories.

[AuntieStella]

"Has the NHS bone marrow service been turning away men or black, Asian or ethnicity donors because too many women have been signing up?"

I don't think so, and it sounds like there are capacity issues in terms of overall numbers and that for the first time they are close to ceiling. They might be bidding for additional resources to make it more efficient so it can be bigger in total.

And they definitely want more BME people and white men. So if you know people who fit that profile, then one thing you could do is encourage them to sign up. Or anyone, via Anthony Nolan, who don't seem to have the same capacity issues.

[YesterdayOnceMore]

Why are men more likely to be a bone marrow match than women? Unless I missed it, that wasn't explained.

Has the NHS bone marrow service been turning away men or black, Asian or ethnicity donors because too many women have been signing up?

[chantico]

Caucasian women can still be bone marrow donors. If on a register, you may be called to donate.

There is more than one bone marrow register in UK. You could register for one of the others, of not already registered.

This one (on which I am registered btw) has a superfluity of Caucasian women (over 60% of the register) even though the number of matches per registered person of that background is the lowest.

They need more, particularly other ethnicity, people to register, and are happy to continue to take male Caucasian registrations (as they are under-represented).

If you flipped the groups around, would you still have the same objections if white men were over represented and new registrations suspended until they had a mix that supported treatments required for the healthcare needs of the total society?

If there is a sociology question here, isn't it to examine why women are more likely to register?

[Movingonmymind]

Their rationale seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, women of any age are often generally excluded from clinical trials for fear of accidentally causing harm to an unborn foetus. This brings into question the efficacy of many drug treatments for women- tested on men, they have been presumed to be equally effective for women. That is a feminist issue.

[scaevola]

"The policy was implemented without public discussion or consultations, and there is a continuing lack of public information about the policy."

That's a totally normal feature of evidence based policy making. And databases such as medline can be readily accessed by the public.

And they haven't been discarding anything, other than products still not used by their expiry date. The most useful products will to be used first, depending on blood group, rhesus status etc. How useful it is for a particular is determined according to evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness.

Donors know that their specific donation might not be used, depending on demand. They also know their donation might be used whole, or separated, or used for research not in patients. Or might be discarded, if it isn't used before its expiry date. Donors are encouraged to read the information leaflet every time they donate (indeed you have to sign you have done so for the parts relating informed consent).

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

OP in relation to bone marrow your opening post is a distortion of the facts.

In relation to plasma, others have pointed out the clinical reasons.

I see Professor Kent is a sociologist and whilst Ann Maree Farell has a string of letters after her name not one is for a degree in a scientific or medical discipline. I suppose however if you're getting funding to write a "feminist analysis" you might be set on finding discrimination where none exists.

[Snoopadoop]

I asked you. Not Professor Kent. ;)