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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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 !

[Movingonmymind]

Certain medications meant to say.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[OnceMoreIntoTheBleach]

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

[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.