have you ever donated blood despite being considered ineligible?

I tried to give blood a few times but was always disqualified by the "shortness of breath" question. Yet i've had two vials of blood drawn at a time on several occasions for medical reasons without incident.

A touchy point. At tbe university where I work those blood trucks come twice a.week. When accosted I say "I would but I'm gay," whjch inspires nervous apologizing and pawing at the ground. I don't know if shaming them will force a change in their asinine policy.

I used to lie. Now it offends me.

if you're gay

this is a thing?

It's super-offensive!

I fall into the category of

•have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
•are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
•have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
•have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above

Sorry, my ex-hophead wife still doesn't have AIDS. I'm still going to donate blood. I'm not a liar by nature and I hate having to lie. I can only imagine how much more you would hate it Alfred.

still doesn't have AIDS.

...or hep or whatever.

wait, is this a national policy or something?

it's an FDA ban.

but we can marry (some places) and be cannon fodder, that's all that matters

xpost thanks. i didn't know that.

I don't donate blood but it's not because I'm banned; it's because the one time I did, the woman drawing my blood poked through my vein and into an artery, drawing useless, oxygenated blood and trapping me at the donation location (the high school gym) for an extra hour because they were afraid to let me leave. When I woke up the next morning, I could not straighten my arm past 90 degrees. My arm stayed this way for two weeks until I finally convinced my mom to take me to the doctor, who used the ultrasound machine to force my bicep to relax.

So yeah, haven't given blood in 22 years.

I fall into the category of

•have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
•are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
•have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
•have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above

I read this incorrectly and thought that you meant you had done all these things and for a second I was like well, I'll be damned - who knew?

It's incredible that we're clinging to '80's policy.

that blood is tested and retested.

Xxp: Can it disqualify me from giving blood? Well sign me up!

Couldn't give in the US, can't in Canada. Mad cow fears.

Haven't lied.

Because I doubt I could do a good enough Canadian accent.

Voted no -- I've lived a boring life by FDA standards. That questionnaire pisses me off every time, though.

I got the first batch of blood-donation swag that I didn't want to throw away in yesterday's mail.

my coworkers who were born in russia can't give blood

geez guys, the cold war is over

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

soooooo just me then.

anyway, gave blood on friday. it's been a while. i feel good about it.

So if I'm getting consent from a patient to accept blood transfusions, and the patient is old enough to remember people getting HIV and Hep C from transfusions before screening was put in place, and asks me what's the risk of contracting a blood-borne infection from a transfusion, should I mention the possibility that some donors may be lying about their exposure on the screening questionnaire?

If someone was to get HIV or HCV from a transfusion from a donor who knowingly concealed their exposure risk (even if that deception was based on a good conscience belief that they were safe or that the screening question was offensive), what do you think the legal recourse should be?

Here's a link to Canada's Krever Inquiry: 2000 people were infected with HIV from transfusions from 1980-85, 30,000 were infected with HCV from 1980-90. Lots of other issues created the scandal and the harm to patients, particularly government and Red Cross mistakes, cost-cutting, and coverups. This is the origin of the screening questions still used today.

Do you think those questions are now out of date or irrelevant, and if so, why? Does your personal interest in donating blood outweigh the public health concerns?

If the red cross screens blood for HIV, hep c, west Nile,chagas, etc., the only purpose I can see the questionnaire serving is to weed out risk groups BEFORE they give blood so that IF the blood does test positive for one if those infections, the red cross does not have to work to track down and inform the donor and safely dispose of the contaminated blood. I dunno. I know that my wife stopped shooting drugs over a decade ago and has been tested for HIV and hep c. There is no risk of me contracting those diseases from her. I am no risk to the red cross for them to have to dispose of my blood. Also no risk to a patient who would receive my blood. I know the red cross always has a shortage of blood. My self-assessment is that there is no ethical problem with me lying on the form and continuing to donate.

Oh I'm sure you're fine. But would you be happy with the idea of other people concealing past exposure risks on that questionnaire?

The Red Cross themselves say their highest priority is the safety of the blood supply (more so than the supply itself). In the judgement of their public health officials, their screening questions are still relevant to ensure that safety. I understand you think you're doing them a favor (and again, I'm sure you're fine), and I see you have your own theory about the value of the screening questions, but I bet the Red Cross wouldn't see the help you're offering by lying on their questionnaire as helpful, which is why you're having to lie.

Again, I'd encourage you to see the question from the other side of the table to see where your ethical responsibilities lie. Doctors like me obtain informed consent from any patient who's agreeing to receive blood products (except in life-saving emergencies when they're used without consent unless a prior wish not to receive blood is known). Some patients have a fair amount of concern about the risk of infection from blood products. You may think that the screening questions are too restrictive (a sort of "security theater" maybe?), but the need to take excessive precautions to reassure people is a very real thing in medical care. I'd like to be able to reassure people with a clear conscience that we're doing our best to limit their risk.

Would you have a problem with receiving blood products yourself from donors who are using their own judgment about their risk of passing along an infection to override the screening questions, even by lying on the questionnaire? What do you think the repercussions should be of for donor who knowingly conceals an exposure risk and thereby endangers a blood transfusion recipient who consented to receive blood based on the idea that the risk of infection was being minimized as much as possible? What do you think the recourse should be for someone who ends up with a blood-borne infection because of that?

I guess I don't see what you're getting out of donating blood even though you're being specifically asked not to. Is this some sort of protest? If your goal is to help the Red Cross, why don't you give them a call, give them your name, and have a nice chat about what you've been doing. Maybe they could even suggest some other ways you could help them out (volunteering?), instead of doing exactly what they've specifically asked you not to do.

It's definitely not a protest. If it was, I'd be very outspoken about it and not conducting a poll trying to find the pulse on the topic on an out-of-the-way message board! I dunno. I figured that hey, I know there are gay people on ilx, I know there are former i.v.-drug users on ilx, etc. So, I'm surprised by the results. I figured there might have been a couple gay people who were like, "fuck it. I don't have HIV and I know I don't have HIV." I dunno. Your input is valuable to me though, Plasmon. It's good to have the perspective of a medical professional and end user of the product.

I'm less concerned with how's life's donation than the idea of others with worse reasoning capabilities using the same line of thought less intelligently.

how's life, don't tell people you did this! Next thing you know, I'll be giving blood because I'm pretty sure that girl I think I had sex with, but I was drunk and wasn't sure, might not have hepatitis anymore because you can get over that right

I guess what I'm saying is having people self-assess their risk profiles outside of given criteria is kind of a bad idea, even if the current criteria is outdated.

There's also the question as to what the point is. Not being able to donate blood isn't a human rights violation, even if the criteria should be updated or amended. Meanwhile receiving an infusion of someone else's blood collected under false pretences (literally!) is a violation of autonomy for the patient, because of the principle of informed consent, even if there is no demonstrable harm.

Would you want to hear that your pilot is taking short cuts on the preflight checklist, or your surgeon is cutting corners on sterile technique, because it's obviously going to be OK anyway so what's the difference?

I am super anemic so I cannot give blood. I am on the verge of needing a transfusion myself!

American Medical Association calls on reversal of gay blood donor ban

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/american-medical-association-calls-on-reversal-of-gay-blood-donor-ban/

But asking for a wait period of 12 months after last time having sex, seems...not a ton better?

Seroconversion can take several months, so HIV testing isn't considered absolutely reliable for a year after last exposure.