FDA updates blood donation policy
-
[The policy revision] eliminates time-based deferrals and screening questions specific to men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with MSM. Under the final guidance issued today, all prospective blood donors will answer a series of individual, risk-based questions to determine eligibility. All prospective donors who report having a new sexual partner, or more than one sexual partner in the past three months, and anal sex in the past three months, would be deferred to reduce the likelihood of donations by individuals with new or recent HIV infection who may be in the window period for detection of HIV by nucleic acid testing.
Additionally, under these final recommendations, those taking medications to treat or prevent HIV infection (e.g., antiretroviral therapy (ART), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)), will also be deferred. ...
-
Bad move.
HIV still exists. Viral loads can be low enough that screening tests can miss them.
You're gonna have to show me that low viral loads pose no threat. I don't think that hs been doe. Politics has no place in the safety of the blood supply.
-
Bad move.
HIV still exists. Viral loads can be low enough that screening tests can miss them.
You're gonna have to show me that low viral loads pose no threat. I don't think that hs been doe. Politics has no place in the safety of the blood supply.
@Jolly said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
Politics has no place in the safety of the blood supply.
Agree. Though the claim is that this was done to address the problem of there not being enough blood supply, not enough blood donation. "Not enough blood" is itself a problem that poses certain risks. Expanding the pool of eligible donors somewhat seems like a trade off of different risks. Like the military or the police lowering recruitment standards when there aren't enough eligible candidates going by the old standards.
-
@Jolly said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
Politics has no place in the safety of the blood supply.
Agree. Though the claim is that this was done to address the problem of there not being enough blood supply, not enough blood donation. "Not enough blood" is itself a problem that poses certain risks. Expanding the pool of eligible donors somewhat seems like a trade off of different risks. Like the military or the police lowering recruitment standards when there aren't enough eligible candidates going by the old standards.
@Axtremus said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
@Jolly said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
Politics has no place in the safety of the blood supply.
Agree. Though the claim is that this was done to address the problem of there not being enough blood supply, not enough blood donation. "Not enough blood" is itself a problem that poses certain risks. Expanding the pool of eligible donors somewhat seems like a trade off of different risks. Like the military or the police lowering recruitment standards when there aren't enough eligible candidates going by the old standards.
Then expand the pool with people engaged in less risky behavior. We get a lot of units from Fort Polk (or whatever the hell they call it now). Used to be, a blood donation was worth a weekend pass. We also got a lot of blood from high school kids and college kids.
I think it well worth the college's PR effort to give one semester's tuition for a lottery prize for donations at high schools and on college campuses. Beats a t-shirt.
-
@Axtremus said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
@Jolly said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
Politics has no place in the safety of the blood supply.
Agree. Though the claim is that this was done to address the problem of there not being enough blood supply, not enough blood donation. "Not enough blood" is itself a problem that poses certain risks. Expanding the pool of eligible donors somewhat seems like a trade off of different risks. Like the military or the police lowering recruitment standards when there aren't enough eligible candidates going by the old standards.
Then expand the pool with people engaged in less risky behavior. We get a lot of units from Fort Polk (or whatever the hell they call it now). Used to be, a blood donation was worth a weekend pass. We also got a lot of blood from high school kids and college kids.
I think it well worth the college's PR effort to give one semester's tuition for a lottery prize for donations at high schools and on college campuses. Beats a t-shirt.
@Jolly, if your idea is to buy blood with money, I have no fundamental problem with that. The rest is just a matter of having proper controls in place to ensure that the supply is not too much riskier than the purely voluntary system we have today. After all, once there is a profit motive, you tend to get more people who are motivated to lie when answering screening questions. Perhaps, based on what you believe to be human nature, you can make an estimate of what the risk will become once you allow exchange of blood with material goods and/or tangible benefits.
-
@Jolly, if your idea is to buy blood with money, I have no fundamental problem with that. The rest is just a matter of having proper controls in place to ensure that the supply is not too much riskier than the purely voluntary system we have today. After all, once there is a profit motive, you tend to get more people who are motivated to lie when answering screening questions. Perhaps, based on what you believe to be human nature, you can make an estimate of what the risk will become once you allow exchange of blood with material goods and/or tangible benefits.
Apparently I’m allowed to donate now, I guess they figure that my allegedly latent 1980’s mad cow disease won’t make much difference to the average American.
-
@Jolly, if your idea is to buy blood with money, I have no fundamental problem with that. The rest is just a matter of having proper controls in place to ensure that the supply is not too much riskier than the purely voluntary system we have today. After all, once there is a profit motive, you tend to get more people who are motivated to lie when answering screening questions. Perhaps, based on what you believe to be human nature, you can make an estimate of what the risk will become once you allow exchange of blood with material goods and/or tangible benefits.
@Axtremus said in FDA updates blood donation policy:
@Jolly, if your idea is to buy blood with money, I have no fundamental problem with that. The rest is just a matter of having proper controls in place to ensure that the supply is not too much riskier than the purely voluntary system we have today. After all, once there is a profit motive, you tend to get more people who are motivated to lie when answering screening questions. Perhaps, based on what you believe to be human nature, you can make an estimate of what the risk will become once you allow exchange of blood with material goods and/or tangible benefits.
I don't want to buy blood. A t-shirt is ok. A snack after donation is mandatory. Other than that, organizations that provide young healthy donors should be targeted. I gave a couple of examples of how to increase donations where you want them to increase.
Paid donors, in general, is a bad idea.
-
I am ineligible to donate in the US for two reasons:
too low a weight and
visiting ThailandI can kind of understand the Thailand issue, as they are concerned about malaria. Wieght, I am not so sure. A lot of people in Asia smaller than me donate.
But realistically, people in Thailand donate blood all the time.
