Malaria and blood donation

[josh]

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

Do not think that is strictly true. You notice further down in the article it says:

(snip from same place):
Britain and parts of Europe already allow travelers to donate if blood tests show they’re free of malaria antibodies, immune cells that attack the parasite. Those tests aren’t used here because they detect just two of the four malaria species, albeit those that cause most disease


Not having figures of the relative percentages of the four types on hand, its difficult to say how important it is that only 2 of the 4 malarial species are detected. Mind you, antibodies are *not* "immune cells"....so the science is dodgy anyway.

There are a fair number of tests available that *could* be applied to screening, so its not the technology thats lacking. I would hazard a guess that its the *expense* of the screening that makes it easier to just rule those samples out than test them. However, as said, with increasing proportions of people going overseas, there will come a time when the development of a cheap test will make it worthwhile.
-j-

 

[TSandM]

One of the keys here is that any test which is dependent on detecting antibodies is going to require time to turn positive. You can be infected with some organisms and not show antibodies for weeks to months, depending on the type of infection and the antibody being tested for. That's one of the reasons why people who are at high risk to have been exposed to disease are excluded from blood donation for a period of time.

 

[fisherdvm]

I think they have an acute shortage of blood in the US. In my 20 year plus of donating blood, the red cross had never called me as frequently as the last 3 years. I think it has to do with the loss of large amount of military personels from their donor pool due to the mad cow disease concern.

They will eventually have to cut their standard, otherwise, their supply is going to shrink even more.

 

[DandyDon]

And, they used to buy needed blood from Europe. If they still do, that supply has got to be lower, too.

 

[Rick Murchison]

You are also deferred from blood donations if ... visited the United Kingdom in the past 12 months (mad cow) ...

How do I let our local folks know that it's only 12 months for the "mad cow" craze? I lived in Europe (Belgium) and travelled all over GB and the continent from 85-88... and they won't touch my blood, claiming the "possible mad cow contact" excuse.
Ridiculous.
MMmooooooooooooooooooo,
Rick

 

[drl]

I'm in the same boat, Rick. I lived in Germany (as a student) for 2 different years between 1980 and 1994, and they won't take my blood anymore even though I was a regular donor for years.
What really annoys me is that they kept calling me, sometimes several times a week, even though I was ineligible! I had to throw a tantrum on the phone to get them to stop.
Moo to yoo too.

 

[vondo]

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

Pretty sure that is not the regulation on the U.K. They are not interested in if you've been there but if you've lived there for a while. Three or six months during the time there were problems with the meat supply has been the criteria.

Mad cow is something that crops up later from chronic exposure, not a disease like malaria that you get over or something like HIV where there are eventually anti-bodies that can be detected.

 

[vondo]

How do I let our local folks know that it's only 12 months for the "mad cow" craze? I lived in Europe (Belgium) and travelled all over GB and the continent from 85-88... and they won't touch my blood, claiming the "possible mad cow contact" excuse.
Ridiculous.
MMmooooooooooooooooooo,
Rick

Your local folks are correct. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that mad cow can be transmitted by blood, but if you've ever seen video of someone dying of this disease, you wouldn't want even the slightest possibility that someone would get this through the supply.

But, I think after the AIDS debacle in which the blood supply was needlessly contaminated, these organizations have been especially cautious.

 

[Web Monkey]

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:

I think they should pay for blood.

It's not like they make it easy to give, and it's vertainly not free to the hospitals.

They haven't taken my blood since I started traveling on vacation, since going to almost anyplace with good diving knocks you off the list.

If they were paying $200/pint, I might consider taking vacations in places that aren't on their "bad" list.


Terry

 

[DandyDon]

I think they should pay for blood.

It's not like they make it easy to give, and it's vertainly not free to the hospitals.

They haven't taken my blood since I started traveling on vacation, since going to almost anyplace with good diving knocks you off the list.

If they were paying $200/pint, I might consider taking vacations in places that aren't on their "bad" list.


Terry

They used to pay $5 here, but - they told me that hepatitis was slipping thru their tests at a rate 10x as high on the paid donors vs the unpaid. Whatever, I'm sure a volunteer donor base is safer. Plasma donations are a totally different deal - with donations allowed much more often, and much lower transmission rate so they do pay - I think.

The organizations are all non-profit, charging the hospital their costs. Those costs could include some abuses, as always - but if they were significant, some news agency would love to expose them.

What we need is an artificial supply, and the organizations are not pushing hard for those. Success would put them out of jobs.