HAMER@Ruby.VCU.EDU (ROBERT M. HAMER) (08/23/90)
"Josh Knight" <JOSH@ibm.com> (or perhaps a moderator; hard to tell) writes: > However, Josh also pointed out that some states may be able to obtain > information on HIV+ antibody status from blood donation tests. In these > states, I would recommend that individuals in high-risk categories simply > avoid donating blood entirely. I would strongly urge that anyone in a high risk category avoid donating blood entirely, not simply because of an interest in avoiding discrimination, but on the chance that the individual's blood has not seroconverted but is in fact infected. > I also urge you to honestly present your status, if you do donate, since the > lives of others depend on the truthfulness of your answers--HIV antibody > tests, for example, are not reliable indicators of whether your blood is > infectious with HIV. -- Dan Greening / dgreen@cs.ucla.edu] Agreed. >One thing that has changed since the last time I gave blood (April 6, 1990) >is that the person that looks for needle tracks on your arms, checks your >hematocrit, temperature and blood pressure now has a script to read about It has been interesting, as I donate blood 4-5 times per year, to watch the evolution of the questions they ask you and the scripts and procedures they follow. Things have changed fairly often over the last 5 years or so, little by little. The questions have gotten more explicit, the wording gets improved. The last time I donated, perhaps a month or so ago, the phlebomist checked my arms for tracks, too. I asked her if she'd ever seen needle tracks, and she said she'd not. I haven't, either, and wonder how effective someone who has never seen tracks would be at recognizing such signs of IV drug use. I also note that she didn't check the many other places I hear that IV drug users also inject, such as behind the knees.(?)
JOSH@IBM.COM (Josh Knight) (08/23/90)
Robert M. Hamer <HAMER@Ruby.VCU.EDU> writes > "Josh Knight" <JOSH@ibm.com> (or perhaps a moderator; hard to tell) writes: > > > However, Josh also pointed out that some states may be able to obtain > > information on HIV+ antibody status from blood donation tests. In these > > states, I would recommend that individuals in high-risk categories simply > > avoid donating blood entirely. That's Dan, but I agree, at least when it's reasonable (see below). > I would strongly urge that anyone in a high risk category avoid donating > blood entirely, not simply because of an interest in avoiding discrimination, > but on the chance that the individual's blood has not seroconverted but is > in fact infected. The point here is that the confidential UPC sticker allows you to tell the blood bank people *NOT* to use your blood for transfusion. There may be circumstances when not giving blood makes you noticeable. When I was in an Army school in Huntsville, Alabama in 1970, everybody in the class gave blood because the Army *STRONGLY* encouraged it and gave you the day off. If you didn't you'd probably be asked why you didn't. Many of the "risk groups" are groups than many people may not want to admit being in. Were it not for the fact that the blood will be tested *whether or not* it is used for transfusion *AND* the test results cannot be completely guaranteed to confidential, there would be no conflict between giving blood and being in a "risk group" but not wanting to admit it. Since the Army is testing everyone for HIV when you join, you'd have had to acquire HIV while in the service. Whether you want to put suspicion on yourself by not giving blood or risk the test results not being confidential is a personal decision, IMHO. > > I also urge you to honestly present your status, if you do donate, since the > > lives of others depend on the truthfulness of your answers--HIV antibody > > tests, for example, are not reliable indicators of whether your blood is > > infectious with HIV. -- Dan Greening / dgreen@cs.ucla.edu] > > Agreed. That's still Dan. You're not asked to answer the questions, only to read the "what you need to know before you give blood" and follow the instructions with respect to the use of the "transfuse my blood" or "do not transfuse my blood" labels. > >One thing that has changed since the last time I gave blood (April 6, 1990) > >is that the person that looks for needle tracks on your arms, checks your > >hematocrit, temperature and blood pressure now has a script to read about That's me... > It has been interesting, as I donate blood 4-5 times per year, to watch > the evolution of the questions they ask you and the scripts and procedures > they follow. Things have changed fairly often over the last 5 years or > so, little by little. The questions have gotten more explicit, the > wording gets improved. ... One thing I liked a little better a few years ago. They were more explicit about the privacy thing. Here's a quote from a handout dated June 87: In order to protect the recipients of blood, we ask you not to give blood if you have symptoms which occur in patients with AIDS or are in one of the above groups considered at high risk of exposure to AIDS. If you are in a high exposure group, you can help by: o not offering to give blood; or o telling the nurse you are not feeling well when your medical history is taken. Any donor who feels poorly is not permitted to donate; so this provides a private way for you to excuse yourself. Some persons may still wish to give blood if they are in a high exposure group. If so, we have a confidential form which all donors fill out after their medical history is taken, asking whether their blood should be used for transfusion or only for laboratory tests. If you are in a high exposure group, indicate that your blood should be used for laboratory tests only. All routine tests on donated blood will be carried out on units which are for laboratory tests only. On the other hand, I like the current sticker better than the form they had before. It was 8.5 X 11 and you checked a box and then folded it up and stapeled it. Depending on how heavily you checked the box, your choice might or might not have been evident. A folder about AIDS dated August 1983 has roughly the same text about not donating and confidentiality, but there wasn't a test then, so of course no mention of that. > ... The last time I donated, perhaps a month or so ago, > the phlebomist checked my arms for tracks, too. I asked her if she'd > ever seen needle tracks, and she said she'd not. I haven't, either, and > wonder how effective someone who has never seen tracks would be at > recognizing such signs of IV drug use. I also note that she didn't > check the many other places I hear that IV drug users also inject, such > as behind the knees.(?) > The first time I remember being asked to roll up both sleeves was in April of this year. I have nice prominent veins, so they used to just take one look at either arm and don't need to see the other one to know that it'll be easy to stick me. Josh josh@ibm.com