UK blood donor ban to be lifted.

Pauliedragon

As above the ban on people who previously lived in the UK is to be lifted from next month. Good news the more people eligible the better.
http://https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/0911/1075290-blood-donation/

ancapailldorcha

Fantastic news. I used to really enjoy giving blood. The staff were always sound and it was something I'd do with my Mum and my Gran.

KrustyUCC

Yup positive news

My Dad used to donate before he lived in the UK with work

Always said he would have continued only for the ban

dinorebel

Not getting mine


#Bloodxit

One eyed Jack

Pauliedragon wrote: »

As above the ban on people who previously live din the UK is to be lifted from next month. Good news the more people eligible the better.
http://https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/0911/1075290-blood-donation/

Not necessarily -


"And its been determined both here and in the UK that the risk is in fact a lot smaller than we thought it was. Its not absent, but its very, very tiny."


By permitting more people to donate blood who were previously ineligible, they’ve just increased the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions.

That whole “very, very tiny” hand waving risk assessment would make Simon Harris blush.

Alun

Link doesn't work, should be ...

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/0911/1075290-blood-donation/

victor8600

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By permitting more people to donate blood who were previously ineligible, they’ve just increased the risk of contamination....

It is not "just increasing the risk". Risks for and against doing anything have to weighted. More people able to donate may mean more supply, so less risk of someone dying because there is not enough blood to transfuse.

One eyed Jack

victor8600 wrote: »

It is not "just increasing the risk". Risks for and against doing anything have to weighted. More people able to donate may mean more supply, so less risk of someone dying because there is not enough blood to transfuse.

I know it’s not “just increasing the risk”, that’s why the complete sentence read “they’ve just increased the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions.” It was in response to the idea that it was good news and more people being able to donate, the better. That’s why I said not necessarily, because by increasing the amount of people who are eligible to donate blood, the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions is increased.

As for how much the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions is increased by, according to Prof. Field is it can be IMO handwaved away as “very, very tiny”.

I’m not questioning that a risk assessment, cost/benefit analysis, pros/cons assessment was done. I’m saying that I don’t find their opinion the least bit reassuring. I don’t see the benefit in less risk of someone dying if they’re more likely to be infected with a disease which will significantly reduce their quality of life if they live. I understand too that other people will of course feel differently.

uck51js9zml2yt

Too late for me. I'm now on warfarin so can't give it

Bogwoppit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know it’s not “just increasing the risk”, that’s why the complete sentence read “they’ve just increased the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions.” It was in response to the idea that it was good news and more people being able to donate, the better. That’s why I said not necessarily, because by increasing the amount of people who are eligible to donate blood, the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions is increased.

As for how much the risk of contamination in the supply chain for people who are given transfusions is increased by, according to Prof. Field is it can be IMO handwaved away as “very, very tiny”.

I’m not questioning that a risk assessment, cost/benefit analysis, pros/cons assessment was done. I’m saying that I don’t find their opinion the least bit reassuring. I don’t see the benefit in less risk of someone dying if they’re more likely to be infected with a disease which will significantly reduce their quality of life if they live. I understand too that other people will of course feel differently.

Have you read the article? There have been 4 cases where people have been infected in the UK, that means the risk here is pretty much non existent.

One eyed Jack

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Have you read the article? There have been 4 cases where people have been infected in the UK, that means the risk here is pretty much non existent.

There it is again, the downplaying of the increased risk to people who are given blood transfusions. Downplaying the increased risk to people who are given blood transfusions doesn’t make this latest decision any more acceptable in my opinion. That sort of attitude is exactly what allowed things like this to happen in the first place when they shouldn’t have happened -


Man infected with hepatitis in blood scandal told ‘don’t worry about it’

riffmongous

So I can't call my English friends filthy mudbloods anymore?



(They're Harry potter fans)

Bogwoppit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There it is again, the downplaying of the increased risk to people who are given blood transfusions. Downplaying the increased risk to people who are given blood transfusions doesn’t make this latest decision any more acceptable in my opinion. That sort of attitude is exactly what allowed things like this to happen in the first place when they shouldn’t have happened -


Man infected with hepatitis in blood scandal told ‘don’t worry about it’

It’s not downplaying the risk, the risk is almost non existent, that’s a fact. Unless you have data to prove otherwise.

s7ryf3925pivug

Most haemophiliacs given blood products before 1984 were infected with hepatitis c and some with HIV. The practices at the time included taking blood from American prisoners and more significantly mixing lots together so one bad donation could infect many people. The senior specialists knew what was happening for years too.

Anyway I dont think you're comparing like with like. Also blood products are only used if no alternative is viable because the risk of infection is recognized, even when no hazard factor is known.

s7ryf3925pivug

Interesting fact about desmopression (DDAVP), which is a viable alternative to factor 8 for treating some milder haemophiliacs: It is a nootropic, which improves your ability to remember what you experience while on it. It also increases your sensitivity to pain.

One eyed Jack

Bogwoppit wrote: »

It’s not downplaying the risk, the risk is almost non existent, that’s a fact. Unless you have data to prove otherwise.

And here was me thinking that the person making the claim, the onus is upon them to provide evidence for their claims.

Using vague phrases such as “very, very tiny”, “pretty much non-existent”, “almost non-existent” does not in any way quantify or give anyone an accurate assessment of the risk involved. Let me try and approach this differently and you might see the point I’m making.

If for example you were a consultant who was due to perform an operation on a patient, and upon informing them that it may involve a blood transfusion, but the risks involved were “very, very tiny”, “almost non-existent”, “pretty much non-existent”, and the patient responded that there was an equal likelihood of you and the hospital being held legally liable for any adverse consequences, would you still be prepared to go ahead with the procedure, or would you attempt to reduce yours and the hospitals risk of liability by having the patient sign a waiver indemnifying you and the hospital in the event of any adverse consequences?

My point being, if the word of the Prof. is expected to be sufficient, then holding them to their own standards should also be sufficient as the risk of legal action against them would be “very, very tiny”, “pretty much non-existent”, “almost non-existent”, and there should be no need to sign a waiver to say that you have consented to the consultant proceeding with surgery as you accept the risks of performing the surgery without the team having the option of a blood transfusion available to them and the risk of your bleeding out in the operating theatre.

I’m not aware of any medical personnel who would proceed under those conditions, expected to take the word of their patients without having their arse sufficiently covered to reduce the risk to themselves. Why would you think their patients should expect any less standards of care?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And here was me thinking that the person making the claim, the onus is upon them to provide evidence for their claims.

Using vague phrases such as “very, very tiny”, “pretty much non-existent”, “almost non-existent” does not in any way quantify or give anyone an accurate assessment of the risk involved. Let me try and approach this differently and you might see the point I’m making.

If for example you were a consultant who was due to perform an operation on a patient, and upon informing them that it may involve a blood transfusion, but the risks involved were “very, very tiny”, “almost non-existent”, “pretty much non-existent”, and the patient responded that there was an equal likelihood of you and the hospital being held legally liable for any adverse consequences, would you still be prepared to go ahead with the procedure, or would you attempt to reduce yours and the hospitals risk of liability by having the patient sign a waiver indemnifying you and the hospital in the event of any adverse consequences?

My point being, if the word of the Prof. is expected to be sufficient, then holding them to their own standards should also be sufficient as the risk of legal action against them would be “very, very tiny”, “pretty much non-existent”, “almost non-existent”, and there should be no need to sign a waiver to say that you have consented to the consultant proceeding with surgery as you accept the risks of performing the surgery without the team having the option of a blood transfusion available to them and the risk of your bleeding out in the operating theatre.

I’m not aware of any medical personnel who would proceed under those conditions, expected to take the word of their patients without having their arse sufficiently covered to reduce the risk to themselves. Why would you think their patients should expect any less standards of care?

So a surgeon is about to put someone to sleep, cut them open, remove their heart and replace it with a new one.

but then gets worried because he isn't sure if the risk with the blood is low, very low or very very low?

batgoat

As a person who has received a blood transfusion and in all likelihood will receive another at some stage in my life. I view this as a good thing. The risk is pretty minimal and in addition, anyone in receipt of a transfusion always face a risk.

One eyed Jack

Aegir wrote: »

So a surgeon is about to put someone to sleep, cut them open, remove their heart and replace it with a new one.

but then gets worried because he isn't sure if the risk with the blood is low, very low or very very low?

No no, that’s not the scenario I presented at all.

In the interests of disclosure I suppose, basically the scenario I described similar to my own experience where I was informed that the procedure might involve the necessity of a blood transfusion. I inquired about the possibility of an autologous transfusion (had done this before, basically I donated my own blood before the operation was done), but was told “we don’t do that any more”.

The anaesthesiologist had something of a fit when I said that I would not give my consent to a blood transfusion. The consultant was at least a bit more measured in their response, and the anaesthesiologist was swapped out and replaced, and the operation went ahead after I had signed the required consent forms to say I knew what I was doing.

The point I’m making is that under no circumstances would they have went ahead with the operation if I had not given them consent that I was aware of and understood the potential consequences. They wouldn’t just have taken my word that the risk of any liability on their part or on the part of the hospital was so insignificant that the risk to them was, as the Professor puts it here “very, very tiny”.

That kind of declaration is fine and dandy when it’s not they who will have to live with any adverse consequences, then they can declare whoever wants to may donate blood and feel better about themselves having done what many would consider to be ‘a good thing’. Measures like this are of no use whatsoever if they are presenting an increased risk, even what is considered to be a “very, very tiny” risk to patients health and welfare.

The end simply doesn’t justify the means IMO considering the risks involved and the potential consequences of circumstances that could have been foreseen and prevented, such as the possibility of the blood being contaminated and the patient becoming infected with a disease that significantly reduces their quality of life, such as the consequences for the patient in this case for example -


Man who contracted Hepatitis C from contaminated blood transfusion awarded €1.26m

bizidea

I think they are also now accepting blood from people with haemochromatosis as long as they meet certain criteria so this will also increase their supplies so instead of dumping the blood it is used

Bannasidhe

Jefferson Raspy Mustang wrote: »

Too late for me. I'm now on warfarin so can't give it

Me too. I use insulin now so can't.

bucketybuck

batgoat wrote: »

The risk is pretty minimal and in addition, anyone in receipt of a transfusion always face a risk.

Stop downplaying the risk!!! :mad:

Seriously, this is good news, no matter what some contrarian thinks.

batgoat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Me too. I use insulin now so can't.

I don't think people who are able to donate blood are fully aware that a lot of people are banned for medical reasons. Wouldn't be a bad publicity campaign in terms of raising awareness.

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

Stop downplaying the risk!!! :mad:

Seriously, this is good news, no matter what some contrarian thinks.

You and I definitely have different perspectives on what constitutes ‘good news’ then. My perspective just happens to be more nuanced -

good news for people who’s ego is so fragile that they consider their own feelings regarding their eligibility to donate are more important than the reason they are either permitted or excluded from donating in the first place. Terrible news for anyone who needs a donation because now however one might be of a mind to hand wave away the increased risk to anyone in need of a transfusion, the undeniable fact is that the risk to those people has just increased, on top of all the other inherent risks that were already present.

That’s not just what I think, that’s a fact, a “very, very tiny” fact if one isn’t ever likely to be in need of a transfusion. It’s a significant fact if one is ever in need of a transfusion, and labelling anyone who doesn’t share your perspective as ‘contrarian’, is meaningless, frankly, when put in it’s proper perspective.

Bogwoppit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And here was me thinking that the person making the claim, the onus is upon them to provide evidence for their claims.

Using vague phrases such as “very, very tiny”, “pretty much non-existent”, “almost non-existent” does not in any way quantify or give anyone an accurate assessment of the risk involved. Let me try and approach this differently and you might see the point I’m making.

If for example you were a consultant who was due to perform an operation on a patient, and upon informing them that it may involve a blood transfusion, but the risks involved were “very, very tiny”, “almost non-existent”, “pretty much non-existent”, and the patient responded that there was an equal likelihood of you and the hospital being held legally liable for any adverse consequences, would you still be prepared to go ahead with the procedure, or would you attempt to reduce yours and the hospitals risk of liability by having the patient sign a waiver indemnifying you and the hospital in the event of any adverse consequences?

My point being, if the word of the Prof. is expected to be sufficient, then holding them to their own standards should also be sufficient as the risk of legal action against them would be “very, very tiny”, “pretty much non-existent”, “almost non-existent”, and there should be no need to sign a waiver to say that you have consented to the consultant proceeding with surgery as you accept the risks of performing the surgery without the team having the option of a blood transfusion available to them and the risk of your bleeding out in the operating theatre.

I’m not aware of any medical personnel who would proceed under those conditions, expected to take the word of their patients without having their arse sufficiently covered to reduce the risk to themselves. Why would you think their patients should expect any less standards of care?

You still haven’t read the article have you?

One eyed Jack

Bogwoppit wrote: »

You still haven’t read the article have you?

I’ve read the article. Clearly you think I haven’t, but I’d have a better understanding of whatever point you’re trying to make if you just made the point.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My perspective just happens to be more nuanced -

Sure it is. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No no, that’s not the scenario I presented at all.

In the interests of disclosure I suppose, basically the scenario I described similar to my own experience where I was informed that the procedure might involve the necessity of a blood transfusion. I inquired about the possibility of an autologous transfusion (had done this before, basically I donated my own blood before the operation was done), but was told “we don’t do that any more”.

The anaesthesiologist had something of a fit when I said that I would not give my consent to a blood transfusion. The consultant was at least a bit more measured in their response, and the anaesthesiologist was swapped out and replaced, and the operation went ahead after I had signed the required consent forms to say I knew what I was doing.

The point I’m making is that under no circumstances would they have went ahead with the operation if I had not given them consent that I was aware of and understood the potential consequences. They wouldn’t just have taken my word that the risk of any liability on their part or on the part of the hospital was so insignificant that the risk to them was, as the Professor puts it here “very, very tiny”.

That kind of declaration is fine and dandy when it’s not they who will have to live with any adverse consequences, then they can declare whoever wants to may donate blood and feel better about themselves having done what many would consider to be ‘a good thing’. Measures like this are of no use whatsoever if they are presenting an increased risk, even what is considered to be a “very, very tiny” risk to patients health and welfare.

The end simply doesn’t justify the means IMO considering the risks involved and the potential consequences of circumstances that could have been foreseen and prevented, such as the possibility of the blood being contaminated and the patient becoming infected with a disease that significantly reduces their quality of life, such as the consequences for the patient in this case for example -


Man who contracted Hepatitis C from contaminated blood transfusion awarded €1.26m

surely the risk from actually having the operation in the first place far outweighs any risk with a blood transfusion?

Bogwoppit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve read the article. Clearly you think I haven’t, but I’d have a better understanding of whatever point you’re trying to make if you just made the point.

Didn't pay much attention then did you? 4 cases of infection in the UK, there’s my evidence.

is_that_so

Great news. I feel human again!:cool:

skimpydoo

Sadly I can't as I have Non Hodgkins Lymphoma. A chronic blood cancer.