Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Give Blood!
- Thread starter Shaun.P
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed, viruses such as HIV have a certain incubation time during which they'll be missed by tests. This is why it's absolutely vital that you give truthful answers to the pre-donation questionnaire. All blood is tested, but donors who have had some form of possible exposure will be scrutinised closer and for a longer period of time before it's released for use.
Blood is tested almost immediately after donation. Watch when you give blood. There's a little branch in the tube that leads from your arm to the bag. The nurse attaches a couple of those 'vacutainer' test-tubes to this branch to collect some of the blood that you're donating separate from the main bags.
These test-tubes are sent immediately for testing by the NBS. Having never had anything dangerous in my blood (other than neutropaenia, which is only dangerous to me!), I've never had the NBS contact me about my blood. I would very much imagine you'd be contacted by phone by a professional qualified to advise you about any condition you may have and what steps you should take.
Umm... why?
Oh, I should also mention that the NBS really prefers that you do not give blood in order to find out if there's anything wrong with it. If you have any reason to believe you may have a blood disorder, see your GP. They'll be able to run a much more appropriate set of tests. Note that the NBS will test for blood conditions that would harm a recipient. It does not test for factors which could indicate a problem with some other part of the donor.
For example, the NBS's tests won't show that I've got chronic (thankfully) benign cyclic neutropaenia. They might note that my neutrophils are a little low, but it won't make my blood unusable or lead to a diagnosis of my condition. It's harmless for a recipient so it's not a problem.
I've donated blood twice (I'm 16 1/2 and in NZ) and have O-. My brother also donates and is O+.
My parents don't...now...
Not because they're sad but because they live in the UK until 1980.
Once they came to NZ they donated blood for 15 years before they were told not to because of the mad cows. I mean if they've donated for 15 years, apparantly with Mad Cow disease, how much more harm can they apparantly do?
My parents don't...now...
Not because they're sad but because they live in the UK until 1980.
Once they came to NZ they donated blood for 15 years before they were told not to because of the mad cows. I mean if they've donated for 15 years, apparantly with Mad Cow disease, how much more harm can they apparantly do?
Thanks for the help answering my questions above!
I went ahead and gave blood for the third time yesterday. I felt okay afterwards as I has a pretty descent breakfast.
I thought it would be interesting if someone (Doctor Q!) could find a way to compare the results in the forum poll about peoples' bloodgroups, compared to the National Blood Services' website on the UK population and see how much a diversity there is.
http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/all_about.html
I went ahead and gave blood for the third time yesterday. I felt okay afterwards as I has a pretty descent breakfast.
I thought it would be interesting if someone (Doctor Q!) could find a way to compare the results in the forum poll about peoples' bloodgroups, compared to the National Blood Services' website on the UK population and see how much a diversity there is.
http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/all_about.html
No problem!
With MacRumors being an international site, drawing comparisons between the poll here and the figures on the UK NBS site would be very difficult.
Blood groups tend to be linked to racial heritage -- and not just along lines of skin colour, but the relative 'age' of your genetic make-up. For example, before the 8th Century, the entire UK population was group O. As groups of humanity migrated and bred, groups changed and developed. For example, my group, AB+ is only a few hundred years old. [edit: it's actually 500-1000 years old - I remembered wrong! Still, very recent considering the age of the human race
]See http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/e14diduk.html
Plus, although it's common knowledge that the O- group is the 'universal' type that can be given to anyone, it's also really important for O+ donors to give. O+ can be given to any other Rh + group (A+, B+, AB+). AB- is also vital, since it's used as the basis for building plasma stocks.
There's also more info about blood group ages and geographic and cultural breakdowns here:
http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/world_blood.html
Thanks for all the interesting information, displaced!
Here's a colorful comparison of the U.K. numbers and our current poll totals. I have a feeling that our sample size is a bit smaller, but here it is for what it's worth. I ignored the "Don't know" answers.
Our percentages for each blood type are within 2% of the national averages, except that we have a smaller A+ percentage (24% instead of 35%) and a larger O- percentage (14% instead of 7%).
Here's a colorful comparison of the U.K. numbers and our current poll totals. I have a feeling that our sample size is a bit smaller, but here it is for what it's worth. I ignored the "Don't know" answers.
Our percentages for each blood type are within 2% of the national averages, except that we have a smaller A+ percentage (24% instead of 35%) and a larger O- percentage (14% instead of 7%).
Attachments
A+
None fortunately. Although my wife usually feels very dizzy and lightheaded afterwards.
I enjoy donating blood and hope that my blood comes in good use to those who need it. I pray that I'll never be in of a need a donation myself.
Thank you Doctor Q. I find it very weird that according to the UK Blood Website, there is a higher chance of you being B - than AB - and yet there are 2 AB - people and no B - people!
It's a weird concept, but in a small sample we'd expect to get results that vary from the national averages, even if we were all people in the original sample.
For example, suppose you have a few different colors of socks in your dresser drawer. Mix them all up, then pick out half of them at random. What are the chances that your sample will have colors in the same proportions as the whole collection, i.e., that you'll have picked out exactly half for each color? It's rather small. If there were 6 black socks, 4 white socks, and 2 gray socks, I compute the chances at 13%.
It's because we're all rare gems here on MR
Thanks Dr. Q. I'm actually quite surprised that we're reasonably close to the UK-specific NBS figures.
The NBS site's really interesting. The fact that blood groups have 'materialised' over time was news to me. I wonder how they determined the eras during which new groups evolved and how it was that all mankind had group O during the stone-age.
I wonder if there's a possibility of another differentiating factor developing in the future?
Also, check out the Japanese Blood Type Theory of Personality. Interestingly, the description of my AB group fits with the typical description of my Aquarius starsign. Probably still hocus-pocus though
(edit: linking through some Wikipedia pages -- which I must stop myself from doing, 'cos it's way past midnight and I've got work tomorrow -- it seems there's some debate as to which is the 'Ancestral' blood group, i.e. which was the first group present in mankind. Geneticists seem to be claiming that genes suggest that A would be the ancestral type. However, I can see that the universal nature of O- and the 'universal for Rh+ recipients) nature of O+ could be interpreted as it being the ancestral type.
All very interesting stuff... but sleep beckons
]
When I made my latest appointment to donate blood, I was asked if I'm a "random" donor. I didn't know what that meant! Turns out it means that I'm donating to the general blood bank, not donating for a particular patient.
So I guess I'm Random Doctor Q.
* * * * *
Wanna discuss a controversy? I've been hearing differences of opinion about what blood bank policies should be about using the newest vs. oldest donated blood when a patient needs a transfusion. Suppose they have units of blood that were donated from 1 day to several weeks ago. When somebody needs a transfusion, which blood should they use?
1. If they use the oldest blood first, there is the least chance that a unit will expire without being used. Since blood is sometimes in short supply, this policy must clearly be best.
2. If they use the newest blood first, the patient may get the biggest "boost" from it. The other blood in the blood bank might not even turn out to be needed. Since it can help a patient to the maximum extent possible, this policy must clearly be best.
3. Suppose Person A needs blood during routine surgery (say a joint replacement) while Person B is regularly transfusion dependent. Person A just needs to replace some lost volume and will soon regenerate their own. Meanwhile, Person B has medical reasons to minimize the number of transfusions they get, so they would benefit from having the freshest possible blood. So Person B should get fresher blood and Person A less-fresh blood, no matter who asked first. This serves both patients well, so this policy must clearly be best.
4. But Person B makes much greater demands on the blood bank for their regular transfusions. If that one person keeps getting the freshest blood, many others are getting less-fresh blood than they would otherwise. It's not fair to favor one person over many people, so it's better to give medium-fresh blood to Person B but save the rest for all of the other people. Since this helps more people, this policy must clearly be best.
Not that easy to decide, is it? When you hear about policymakers having to make life-or-death decisions, it's usually not in the literal sense, but here's such a case!
So I guess I'm Random Doctor Q.
* * * * *
Wanna discuss a controversy? I've been hearing differences of opinion about what blood bank policies should be about using the newest vs. oldest donated blood when a patient needs a transfusion. Suppose they have units of blood that were donated from 1 day to several weeks ago. When somebody needs a transfusion, which blood should they use?
1. If they use the oldest blood first, there is the least chance that a unit will expire without being used. Since blood is sometimes in short supply, this policy must clearly be best.
2. If they use the newest blood first, the patient may get the biggest "boost" from it. The other blood in the blood bank might not even turn out to be needed. Since it can help a patient to the maximum extent possible, this policy must clearly be best.
3. Suppose Person A needs blood during routine surgery (say a joint replacement) while Person B is regularly transfusion dependent. Person A just needs to replace some lost volume and will soon regenerate their own. Meanwhile, Person B has medical reasons to minimize the number of transfusions they get, so they would benefit from having the freshest possible blood. So Person B should get fresher blood and Person A less-fresh blood, no matter who asked first. This serves both patients well, so this policy must clearly be best.
4. But Person B makes much greater demands on the blood bank for their regular transfusions. If that one person keeps getting the freshest blood, many others are getting less-fresh blood than they would otherwise. It's not fair to favor one person over many people, so it's better to give medium-fresh blood to Person B but save the rest for all of the other people. Since this helps more people, this policy must clearly be best.
Not that easy to decide, is it? When you hear about policymakers having to make life-or-death decisions, it's usually not in the literal sense, but here's such a case!
I always thought my first post on this forum would be about a mac, not giving blood!!!!
I gave blood for the first time when I was 17 because, I was curious as to what my blood type was
Blood type is O+. Funny thing is, my best friend happens to be O+ too and we're always joking around about who to call for a transfusion
I don't go out of my way to donate so I dont donate that often, but when I see a blood drive at the gym or at work, I'm definately there
Besides..... donating blood is a great way to get a break from work!!! Your boss would have to be pretty cold-hearted to scream at you for it
I gave blood for the first time when I was 17 because, I was curious as to what my blood type was
Blood type is O+. Funny thing is, my best friend happens to be O+ too and we're always joking around about who to call for a transfusion
I don't go out of my way to donate so I dont donate that often, but when I see a blood drive at the gym or at work, I'm definately there
Besides..... donating blood is a great way to get a break from work!!! Your boss would have to be pretty cold-hearted to scream at you for it
I'm in the same boat. I had totally forgotten that it would stop me from giving blood until I showed up and they asked me the question. Yeah I know, silly me for getting clean needles stuck into me -- wait shouldn't giving blood stop you have giving blood?
I've seen the question come up regarding why you can't donate if you've been in certain countries for a number of years. The answer is that they're being mery cautious regarding Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human versions of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease). There is NO blood test that can detect CJD or vCJD. This is why people who simply MAY have been exposed are deferred from donating.
As for HIV/gay men... last time I heard, HIV is still considerably more prevalent among gay men than among straight men (the reverse seems to be true among women, however). Since blood tests for HIV will not return a positive result until several months after an HIV infection, it makes sense to me that they would be cautious in that regard as well. Bear in mind also that straight men are asked questions regarding behavior that may put them at risk for HIV infection as well, such as soliciting prostitutes.
Anyway, for those who are deferred from donating, if you want to help the Red Cross/whatever organization, sign up as a volunteer at a donation site. They always need people to help out with giving people cookies, and helping them with their bags and all that.
As for me, I just finished with gallon #1 the other week.
As for HIV/gay men... last time I heard, HIV is still considerably more prevalent among gay men than among straight men (the reverse seems to be true among women, however). Since blood tests for HIV will not return a positive result until several months after an HIV infection, it makes sense to me that they would be cautious in that regard as well. Bear in mind also that straight men are asked questions regarding behavior that may put them at risk for HIV infection as well, such as soliciting prostitutes.
Anyway, for those who are deferred from donating, if you want to help the Red Cross/whatever organization, sign up as a volunteer at a donation site. They always need people to help out with giving people cookies, and helping them with their bags and all that.
As for me, I just finished with gallon #1 the other week.
Can't donate blood, but I encourage everyone to do it
Due to severe anemia, I am not eligible as a blood donor. I tried to donate plasma once (slipped through the net), but it left me so sick afterwards that I never tried it again.
HOWEVER...
After having worked for more than two years in a plasma clinic, I can say without hesitation that 99.9999% of the people that go have no problems, no trouble, no side-effects of any kind. Citrate reactions and hypersensitivity reactions are so rare that I never saw one in two years of nearly full time work. Most people go in, donate, then leave without incident.
My fiance donates blood like crazy, as often as she can. I encourage everyone who is eligible to do the same. From my work in the hospital, it is evident that there is a very real need for it.
Moreover, as a researcher, it is good to have supplies to work with. During the year I work in the Leishmania laboratory here at school, experimenting with neutrophils and so forth. It is hard to find donors even for that noble service (feeding the parasites, so to speak). Research leads to progress, progress leads to an improvement in lives.
Donate blood!
\steps off podium.
Due to severe anemia, I am not eligible as a blood donor. I tried to donate plasma once (slipped through the net), but it left me so sick afterwards that I never tried it again.
HOWEVER...
After having worked for more than two years in a plasma clinic, I can say without hesitation that 99.9999% of the people that go have no problems, no trouble, no side-effects of any kind. Citrate reactions and hypersensitivity reactions are so rare that I never saw one in two years of nearly full time work. Most people go in, donate, then leave without incident.
My fiance donates blood like crazy, as often as she can. I encourage everyone who is eligible to do the same. From my work in the hospital, it is evident that there is a very real need for it.
Moreover, as a researcher, it is good to have supplies to work with. During the year I work in the Leishmania laboratory here at school, experimenting with neutrophils and so forth. It is hard to find donors even for that noble service (feeding the parasites, so to speak). Research leads to progress, progress leads to an improvement in lives.
Donate blood!
\steps off podium.
Apparently I am able to donate plasma again. My dad said Canadian Blood Services phoned me up the other day when I was out. During my 56 day leave from donating plasma I've thought a lot about stuff, and well, I decided that I am not going to be donating plasma anymore. I was up to 20 donations, and that is plenty enough for my liking, and don't worry, I have good reasoning behind this.
I agree with mkrishnan - after feeling a bit ill after the first time, why did you say you'd had something to eat when asked at your second donation? It doesn't make sense to me. If you give blood on an empty stomach, you'll almost certainly feel ill.
Unless you're feeling masochistic, next time have something to eat and drink before you go and you'll probably be fine. Works for me.
After donating at least a few gallons to the American Red Cross over the years, I stopped when I realized I was basically giving this organization a DNA sample. I don't trust them enough with that, even if they offered reassurances about how the DNA could be used. And, to my knowledge, they haven't offered.
I go on a drinking binge before donating. Wait, that didn't sound right. Lemme start over...
I drink lots of water and juice for many hours before donating. That makes it easier for all concerned. Sometimes I'm not very thirsty for the juice they want you to have afterwards, but I drink that too.
Afterwards, they say you shouldn't operate heavy machinery. I guess that means we should use MacBooks instead of Mac Pros for the rest of the day.
If they already have at least one DNA sample and plan to use that information for something without your permission, does it matter whether or not you give them more DNA samples?
It wouldn't, but I stopped donating several years ago. I have no idea if they would still have any samples/information from that long ago, even if they had any intention of cataloging such for any reason.
I know it seems paranoid, but I don't necessarily always trust the gov't, I certainly don't trust business, and I'm suspicious of some charities. (I still have a bit of a memory, much as I try not to use it.)
Since theres a discussion about Donating blood, I accidentally arrange my blood donation to be the same day for my wisdom teeth to be removed.
How far apart should I change my blood donation, 2 weeks or 1 month? I know they made me wait 2 weeks when I had a cold last time.
Thanks
How far apart should I change my blood donation, 2 weeks or 1 month? I know they made me wait 2 weeks when I had a cold last time.
Thanks
I go on a drinking binge before donating. Wait, that didn't sound right. Lemme start over...
I drink lots of water and juice for many hours before donating. That makes it easier for all concerned. Sometimes I'm not very thirsty for the juice they want you to have afterwards, but I drink that too.
Afterwards, they say you shouldn't operate heavy machinery. I guess that means we should MacBooks instead of Mac Pros for the rest of the day.
You've obviously got it down to a fine art. If you have a juicer, there's nothing better than the juice you make yourself, with all the enzymes alive and kicking, rather than the pasturised stuff you find in the supermarket. And being British, I go for the cup of tea afterwards! I'm not fond of diluted fruit squash either. If someone's prone to feeling off-colour afterwards, it's better for them to have a cold drink though.
Do you get any acknowledgement in the States after giving a certain number of donations? In the UK they give a red and silver (coloured) badge after 25 donations, a red and gold (coloured) badge after 50 plus a pen and I think it might be a plate after 60. Nothing expensive, just a small acknowledgement and a letter of thanks.