National Blood Service - they are sounding rather desperate!!!

[gratts]

Thats how the heamopheliacs (I think thats how you spell it) in America caught AIDs because thier blood tranfusion service paid for blood and every Tom, Dick and HIV positive person donated blood for a few dollars.

Test people every so often then.

 

[Night Train]

Nah, if they started paying for blood then there would end up being different prices for different vlood groups depending on demand. The NHS would then start charging patients for the amount of blood they use in surgery to make up for the extra cost.

Anyway, you already get a free tea and biscuit.

 

[Auntie Helen]

I investigated whether I could give blood a few years ago and after a surprisingly long time on the phone they decided no (because I had bone cancer 15 years ago). Not sure what rules they've relaxed (although my diabetic mum, who takes tablets for it, was recently asked to start donating again) but I should probably ring them and see if they're happy for my blood now. After all, 15 years is a LONG time ago...

 

[Alan Biles]

I used to give an 'armful' every six months until they improved the screening methods (something to do with CJD) and found I had malarial antibodies in my blood. Must have been all that time I spent in the tropics but I don't recall ever having malaria.

 

[Maizie]

Test people every so often then.

The problem being that there is a latency period of up to several months when someone is HIV+ before the test shows they are HIV+

 

[Maz]

The problem being that there is a latency period of up to several months when someone is HIV+ before the test shows they are HIV+

Then test them several months later. Easy.

 

[Maizie]

The problem being the next latency period, and the next...ideally, they would take blood from you now, store it somehow, then test you in six months and determine that the blood they originally took from you is safe to use. Unfotunately that can't be done - so the only way around it is to allow only ultra-low-risk donors.

The problem with paying for blood donation is that you will attact higher risk donors who are doing it just for the money. Some of these people will, shockingly, not be above lying about their risk status! IV drug use being an example of a high-risk behaviour, and also a behaviour that can make people rather desperate for money. That's an extreme example, but I guess that's why they have to look at not just recent risk factors, but lifetime risk factors.

By only taking ultra-low-risk donors, there's a good chance that I not only test negative for HIV, Hep, etc, right now, but there's also a good chance that I'm actually negative and not about to test positive a bit later on...

 

[sheddy]

maybe there should be a reward scheme for higher mileage customers ?

 

[wafflycat]

The problem being that there is a latency period of up to several months when someone is HIV+ before the test shows they are HIV+

Isn't ths situation now that once blood is donated it is tested for all sorts of stuff *before* it's allowed to be used?

 

[colly]

I went and donated tonight.

I asked 'nursey' how long it takes for the blood to get back to normal volume and it is 3 to 4 days.
The red blood cell count though is anything up to 12 weeks.
I am off on a 100 this weekend. I hope I have the energy to get round

 

[a_n_t]

The red blood cell count though is anything up to 12 weeks.

dont they carry the oxygen to your muscles? hhmmmmm

 

[Maizie]

Isn't ths situation now that once blood is donated it is tested for all sorts of stuff *before* it's allowed to be used?

Yes, but I could donate today, test as negative, my blood appears that it can be used, but it's a false negative as I'm carrying something but it's not showing up on the tests yet.