arghhh Red Cross!

[sawhalen]

Just a general whine and "aww man" to Red Cross for the 12-month deferral of blood donation after a vacation in Mexico. Cancun was not a malaria risk, but Cozumel was a no-no. A day of fantastic diving in Cozumel was apparently the trade-off for my average 3-4 pint per year O negative donation, which they say can save 3 lives a piece...jeez. I feel a little guilty...After going, I'd never give up the chance to go again, so there goes a lot of blood donations. I feel like a bad person!

Anyone else felt this guilty about this, or think the Red Cross is a little too cautious when it comes to accepting donations for overseas travel?

 

[Tigerman]

Im not sure how the rules here are (as Im not a donor of my O- blood simply because its litterarilly hours to where I can), but in general I think being a bit cautious with bodilly fluids you intend to put into other peoples bodies is a good thing..
Would suck to get HIV/Malaria/Ebola or anything else from a blood transfusion, something that has happened - although not with ebola as far as I know

 

[john844]

Blood Assurance is the opposite. The will allow trips to cozumel, but have issues with cancun and other interior parts of Mexico.

At least that was the rule during my last donation a few months ago.

John

 

[Insta-Gator]

Tried to donate some O neg last week and it took the Red Cross 45 minutes to decide they would not take it because we had gone to Panama in March and did not stay exclusively in Panama City. Now I have to wait 12 months. You would think there would be a way to clean, test or otherwise use the blood. How about the people who are not 100% accurate or truthful on the questionnaire? Are they assuming that EVERY person that donates blood is absolutely sure they have not exposed themselves to some type of risk? Oh, well. I'm gonna go where I want to go and if they don't want my blood I'll just keep it.

 

[flots am]

I had them take me off their list.

Even a single dive trip once a year to anyplace interesting will get you banned for a year.

Finally I gave up arguing with them.

In fact, I've been banned for being near countries on their list. I explained that I was on a boat and never set foot on land, and they still told me to take a hike.

They must not need the blood.

flots.

 

[DandyDon]

I had them take me off their list.

Even a single dive trip once a year to anyplace interesting will get you banned for a year.

Finally I gave up arguing with them.

In fact, I've been banned for being near countries on their list. I explained that I was on a boat and never set foot on land, and they still told me to take a hike.

They must not need the blood.

flots.

Oh they need the blood alright, but mosquitoes can fly to boats near countries with malaria - and last I heard, testing blood for malaria during the first few months after exposure is non conclusive, plus cannot always be found in blood tests for transfusions, hence the cautions. If it was your mom or daughter to receive the blood, would you want them to use the safest protocols? Then beyond reasonable medical precautions, they have to worry about the lawyers, what might sound bad in court, etc.

I used to give 6 or more times a year in my younger, fitter years - before computer cross checking, I'd give in Lubbock every other month then sometime fib and give in Dallas halfway between. Hey, my blood supply rebounded quickly and I had plenty. Scuba trips to Central America put a damper on my donations, and I stopped trying.

Last I heard, Cozumel and Cancun trips did not disqualify unless you went to the ruins, cenotes, jungle areas, but that may vary with organizations and their lawyers. We have United Blood Services here. The CDC no long suggests malaria prophylactics for the jungles of the Yucatan I don't think, but the blood services seem to be slow to follow suit - again, more likely to be sued.

There are millions of Americans who don't have passports. More of them need to donate.

 

[Insta-Gator]

Oh they need the blood alright, but mosquitoes can fly to boats near countries with malaria - and last I heard, testing blood for malaria during the first few months after exposure is non conclusive, plus cannot always be found in blood tests for transfusions, hence the cautions. If it was your mom or daughter to receive the blood, would you want them to use the safest protocols? Then beyond reasonable medical precautions, they have to worry about the lawyers, what might sound bad in court, etc.

I used to give 6 or more times a year in my younger, fitter years - before computer cross checking, I'd give in Lubbock every other month then sometime fib and give in Dallas halfway between. Hey, my blood supply rebounded quickly and I had plenty. Scuba trips to Central America put a damper on my donations, and I stopped trying.

Last I heard, Cozumel and Cancun trips did not disqualify unless you went to the ruins, cenotes, jungle areas, but that may vary with organizations and their lawyers. We have United Blood Services here. The CDC no long suggests malaria prophylactics for the jungles of the Yucatan I don't think, but the blood services seem to be slow to follow suit - again, more likely to be sued.

There are millions of Americans who don't have passports. More of them need to donate.

Same safety protocols used then are used now, "have you been exposed...?" The safety protocol is totally dependent on the donors truthfulness. Seems our moms and daughters are still at risk.

 

[DandyDon]

Same safety protocols used then are used now, "have you been exposed...?" The safety protocol is totally dependent on the donors truthfulness. Seems our moms and daughters are still at risk.

Nah, 4 weeks between donations were allowed in some sectors back then. I was the only one taking a risk as my blood was tested as good to go, and they needed it. It was silly of me yes, but no dangers as I was big and healthy.

Now, if you are suggesting that we should always be honest with the screeners, yes we should - so yeah technically I was wrong.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I think someone is upset about not getting a donut.

Same safety protocols used then are used now, "have you been exposed...?" The safety protocol is totally dependent on the donors truthfulness. Seems our moms and daughters are still at risk.

The safety of the ARC blood supply is not "totally dependent on the donors [sic] truthfulness."

Before jumping to any conclusions, please consult the ARC website for details of how each unit of donated blood is screened.

 

[Insta-Gator]

I think someone is upset about not getting a donut.

The safety of the ARC blood supply is not "totally dependent on the donors [sic] truthfulness."

Before jumping to any conclusions, please consult the ARC website for details of how each unit of donated blood is screened.

Well, if they actually had donuts I would be livid! But actually I've always donated for the good of our service members who lose blood every day. I was especially dedicated when my son became a combat helicopter pilot and spent a year in Iraq. We still have young men and women in danger and that is my motivation. (That and a can of juice.) So, I still think they need to find a way to utilize what is offered, even if it is just platelets for something.