Malaria and blood donation

[micks]

Aw, same thing for me.. Most of Belize is considered malaria infested so I haven't been able to donate blood for a long time now, probably won't be able to infinitely. Bummer!

 

[Kevrumbo]

After two bouts with Dengue Fever within the past five years, I think I'm banned for Life (Damn Mosquitos! Damn them all to hell!!). . .

 

[Missdirected]

Missdirected, I went to the Red Cross website and got the information there. Plus I'm in the medical field, so asking medical and personal questions is normal for me.

Jess, male to male sex is a leading source of the HIV virus, particularly in the 80's when AIDS first made itself known in the US. Sounds discriminatory, but there are a lot of drug users selling their butts to make money. Giving plasma was also a popular way to make quick cash. Put the two together and you can understand how the blood supply became infected.

I still remember those days. Many a drug user would go there to make more money for drugs. My son said jokingly one day that they needed to pay for his blood. I told him how there was once a time...

Kev, you don't sound very lucky. I may have to steer clear of you :winky:

 

[DandyDon]

I'm not sure, but I don't think they'll take you if you've been to the cities, either. Anywhere where malaria is endemic will put you off the donation list.

I am admittedly not current on my information, but I understand that is not quite the case for Cancun and Cozumel - from my most recent understanding. So often I have to come back and eat such statements on my part, but oh well...

I used to give every other month for years and years, plus organized several blood drives, and yeah - for US blood organizations, in recent years they would not have a problem if you'd been to Cozumel or Cancun, but would disqualify you for a year if you'd been to a ruin. I think that their approach on this is greatly simplified so as to minimize additional training and decision making of the screens while not reducing the number of donors significantly, but goes back to the CDC official statement still current - from http://www.cdc.gov/travel/regionalmalaria/camerica.htm ....

Malaria Risk by Country

Mexico: Risk in rural areas, including resorts in rural areas, of the following states: Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Michoacán, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, and Tabasco. In addition, risk exists in Jalisco State (in its mountainous northern area only). Risk also exists in an area between 24° north and 28° north latitude and 106° west and 110° west longitude which lies in parts of the states of Sonora, Chihuahua, and Durango. No malaria risk along the United States-Mexico border. No malaria risk in the major resorts (that is, resorts located in urban areas) along the Pacific and Gulf coasts, although tourists should use insect repellent and other anti-mosquito measures. (bold emphasis mine)

And of course advisories from their attorneys and insurance carriers on how to respond to the CDC statement. Probably along the lines of "no judgement calls, ok if they have been to Coz or Cancun, not to rural areas.," and somewhere along the way they decided that tourists were going to "rural areas" most commonly to visit ruins.

Malaria is a blood infection, and donated blood is not tested for this. It is possible to feel well and have had a mild case of malaria. The deferral of blood donation is to protect the next person to get the donated blood.

The reason they don't is because they can't. From this July 2006 story: http://tfponline.com/absolutenm/templates/default.aspx?a=2524&template=print-article.htm

Blood banks turn away up to 150,000 would-be donors each year on the slight chance they picked up malaria while traveling to any of dozens of countries.

At the same time, concern is growing that a second parasitic infection from abroad — the Chagas disease rampant in parts of Latin America — increasingly threatens donated blood.

Both infections are rare here, but there’s no way to test donated blood for either one. Now blood banks are pushing for better safeguards that also could help stretch the nation’s tight supply.

While loss of potential donors in the US because of International travel used to be lower, this loss ratio is growing.

...visited the United Kingdom in the past 12 months (mad cow)...

On United Blood Services site, I see that they want to know about and discuss travels to 30 different European cities since 1980.

 

[JessH]

Jess, male to male sex is a leading source of the HIV virus, particularly in the 80's when AIDS first made itself known in the US.

I understand that the initial reaction was necessary, but things have changed and so should the rule. Gay men who are in monogamous relationships who have tested negative for HIV are not a high risk group but they are banned for life from donating blood. The American Red Cross, American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers all agree that the policy should be changed. "The AABB, ABC, and ARC believe that the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men is medically and scientifically unwarranted and recommend that deferral criteria be modified and made compatible with criteria for other groups at increased risk for sexual transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections," the groups said in a joint statement issued at the advisory panel meeting.(http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid27945.asp) The problem is that it is an FDA regulation.

Sounds discriminatory, but there are a lot of drug users selling their butts to make money. Giving plasma was also a popular way to make quick cash. Put the two together and you can understand how the blood supply became infected.

Alone this would have been fine but you just equated all gay men to drug users selling their butts to make money, that is descriminatory. I agree that this WAS a reality and a problem, but times have changed. Besides, do you really expect a drug user who is just in it for the money to be honest with a broad question such as "Have you had sex with a man since 1977?" Questions relating to recent homosexual promiscuity would be more effective and would also allow more people to donate blood. This blood would help with the blood supply shortages that we frequently go through which would help to save lives.

~Jess

 

[Bratface]

Alone this would have been fine but you just equated all gay men to drug users selling their butts to make money, that is descriminatory. I agree that this WAS a reality and a problem, but times have changed. Besides, do you really expect a drug user who is just in it for the money to be honest with a broad question such as "Have you had sex with a man since 1977?" Questions relating to recent homosexual promiscuity would be more effective and would also allow more people to donate blood. This blood would help with the blood supply shortages that we frequently go through which would help to save lives.

~Jess[/QUOTE]



WOW! I can feel the hot flames from your fingers flying over the keyboard coming through my computer to slap me in the face. I HAVE NOT JUST EQUATED ALL GAY MEN AS BEING DRUG USERS AND SELLING THEIR BUTTS FOR MONEY. Having grown up in Washington, DC and been a nurse since God was a boy, I have seen it all and heard it before. If you are calling me a discriminatory (fill in the blank any way you want), YOU ARE WRONG!

If I hit a raw nerve, then I sincerely apologize. I am accepting of all lifestyles, races, creeds, religions, etc. and so on. And for the record, I was personally kicked out of the Red Cross blood program because there was a false postive on a test they did on my blood. The Red Cross retested my blood and got a negativeresult, my doctor tested the blood twice and got negative results, but still they don't want my blood. Should we accuse me of selling my butt or using drugs? I'm just telling you how it was in the big city in the early 70's. Peace brother....

 

[JessH]

I don't think you meant it that way, but that is the way that it read so I felt the need to call you out on it. Don't worry, there are no hard feelings.

Of course that implication is basically what banning all gay men from giving blood does. If there was a legitimate scientific reason for it then I would understand and agree with it, but that is not the case.

~Jess

 

[O2BBubbleFree]

You are also deferred from blood donations if you've ... visited the United Kingdom in the past 12 months (mad cow) and many other reasons.

And don't forget those of us that were stationed in Germany when the US Military was getting it's meat from the UK.

I used to be an 'every chance I get' donor, now it looks like I'm blackballed for life.

 

[Missdirected]

​

 

[mania]

It was almost the same in the 80-ties here in POland. HIV was already known here but there were no tests available (remember - at that time we were communistic country behind the iron curtain). So you were not accepted as a donor if you had been in the Western Europe within a year before....
Mania