Talk:Blood donation

src: www.harveston.com.my

Video Talk:Blood donation

Global view

The "needs globalization" tag was added with no discussion, just a comment that the page is "US-centric." That's hardly a prima facie case, especially since at a glance I see Australia popping up. It would certainly strenghten the argument if the globalization-happy person who made the change had cited some detail where other countries do substantially different things from the article. (Hyperionred 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

I have added a globalisation tag again. This is an appalling article. Adding in "other countries do this" is NOT a worldwide view. Nearly every single reference is an American one. The article uses blood donation information from the USA as fact. I believe the tag should stay until this mess is sorted out. This article should be scrubbed clean with generic information and sub-headings of the countries, or if required new articles such as Blood donation in the United States with appopriate summarising in this article. Panthro (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are probably some specifics that vary about the process, but I'd be extremely surprised if the process is all that different in Europe. Most of the practices described are things that would be done worldwide, though resource constraints probably limit the testing in some areas and high risk donors would be identified differently. I'd agree that it needs a globalization tag, but "appalling article" is probably a little severe. Compare (http://www.ibts.ie/generic.cfm?mID=2&sID=11&ssID=2), which is an irish site to the article.

http://www.scotblood.co.uk/docs/dsr_m_2006.pdf is the donor questionnaire, and there are some differences in the eligibility criteria, but nothing shocking (I'm a little surprised that they consider the Americas as the only high risk region for Malaria, but the number of cases of confirmed transfusion transmitted malaria is painfully small to begin with).Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Blood donation

Iron test

What's this? by a simple iron test. A phlebotomist pricks the donor's finger and elicits a small drop of blood. This blood is placed into a chemical solution -- if the blood is dense enough to sink in the solution, there is sufficient iron in the blood to donate. I have never seen this or heard of it. Standard procedure is probably a hemoglobin quickcheck with a hemoglobin photometer. Kosebamse 19:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They did it to me. I can't say for sure if the person who pricked my finger was a phlebotomist (I have no idea what it means), or if they were really testing my iron levels, but it appears as though the finger-prick-sink-or-float is one standard way of doing it. I know for sure that different places bandage you differently after the donation, so they aren't absolutely uniform. Paullusmagnus 22:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Phlebotomist is a person who is licensed to draw blood. I should start a page on that. I know they do the donation process, but not sure if they do the iron test.

Not sure what a "hemoglobin quickcheck" and "hemoglobin photometer" are. The process described here is how it was done for me the three times I've donated blood (Western NY, and Massachusetts). It seems very likely to me that different methods are used in different regions of the world, or with different administering agencies. Unfortunately neither the Red Cross page nor Britain's National Blood Service give further details, only saying that "iron content will be checked," so we can't reference it well. Kosebamse, perhaps you can add information about the iron test you're more familiar with?

--zandperl 02:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just created "phlebotomist" and someone there mentioned the hematocrit test. I think this all needs clarification. See also discussion at Talk:Phlebotomist. --zandperl 03:13, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some faith groups prohibit blood donation and transfusion. Is it worth mentioning this in the article? Adambisset 20:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes.

Does anyone have any history on how/when screening regulations were created? Cigarette 21:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

finger-prick-sink-or-float is how they do it whenever I've given in the UK. If the result from that is inconclusive, they then do another test.--JBellis 21:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Sexual orientation and blood donation

Is this a good place to mention that homosexuals (males who have had sex with other males since 1977) as well as anyone who has been to Africa or had sex with someone who has been to Africa are prohibited from ever giving blood? Ickle 10:19, 23 Sept 2005

Watch your US-centricism. Obviously people who have been to Africa can donate blood in Africa, for instance, and the USA is the only place I know that has an outright ban on blood donation from any man who has had sexual contact with another man. NTK 20:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The ban for gay men applies in the UK too. You are tested and may be asked to come back if you've been in a malarial country with in the last 6 months or if you've been in the USA (yes, believe it!) in the last 28 days due to a mosquito that is around during the summer and autumn months. DavidBoden 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the public policy justification for these bans is very weak. For instance, the "sexual contact, even once" standard for man-on-man relations excludes even someone who had one gay blowjob with a condom in 1978 and has been tested for AIDS many times, whereas if you had unprotected sex with a prostitute 13 months ago that's fine. Or if you've had unprotected sex with an unlimited number of women of unknown status at any time. The ban on people who have lived in Africa or even had sex with someone who lived in Africa is equally indiscriminate. And it can't be justified on the grounds of simplicity, because the donation questionaires have almost 100 questions, and are extremely detailed. NTK 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The MSM (Men who have sex with men) deferral isn't based on the activity so much as the community. It's a community that is at high risk, which has been shown repeatedly by studies by groups like the CDC. The reality is that it is discriminatory, but it's felt to be justified because the risk among MSM is so much higher. The rules are designed to protect recipients from harm, not donors from being offended. Ironically, MSM are probably the most likely to know they have the disease since testing is more common there than in the population as a whole, and the high rate there may simply be a sampling bias based on who's been tested. Notably, the deferral for tissue donors, which is issued by the same Center within FDA, is only 5 years for MSM. The highest risk heterosexual contact is covered by the "money or drugs for sex" questions. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.27 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously people who have been to Africa can donate blood in Africa, for instance, and the USA is the only place I know that has an outright ban on blood donation from any man who has had sexual contact with another man. Well, just to put a bit of perspective on it, in Norway, neither men who have or have had sexual contact with other men nor women who have had or have sexual contact with men in that category can give blood.

In Italy, you are not asked (they changed the law in 2000). They ask you about your sexual behavior (i.e. if you have safe sex) but they can't ask about your sexual preferences. Prolagus (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is covered at MSM blood donor controversy since it has enough information to make a complete article. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

src: pestrust.edu.in

Donation time length

How long does it typically take for 500 ml to be donated? --Commander Keane 13:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

4-15 minutes is the standard most blood banks use as a "normal" donation. Too fast probably means you hit an artery and not a vein (messy and painful), and too slow leaves a risk of the blood clotting in the tubing and other problems. 6-8 minutes is typical. Most of the time in donation is in health screening (10-15 minutes), setup (5-10 minutes), and just good old fashioned waiting your turn, especially if you didn't set up an appointment (0-? minutes).

20-30 minutes. JFW | T@lk 14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is less than that; it typically takes me 12-15 minutes to give blood (once I have been "plugged" to the pump). I'll check that next time I give blood. By the way I live in Quebec... but I guess the technology used here will be similar to yours. -- Hugo Dufort 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the indivdual. In some (rare) cases it may be infinite (e.g. the chosen blood vein collapses prior to reaching 500 ml as the body has rerouted the return blood flow to a nearby vein. That happened to me three times. [My brother is worse, when they needed the much smaller amount of blood for testing they had to poke him repeatly to get enough blood.) The blood banks themselves tend to start the last treatments no later than 30 minutes prior to planned closure. Jon 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In Poland it takes about 7 minutes, approximately (but we take 450 ml, half a kilogram). For me, it twice took around 5 minutes. Tomasz W. Koz?owski (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

U.K. Donation of 470 ml and today 4 minutes 47 seconds. I always consider below 5 minutes a good time and have completed 25 donations without problem. Make sure you have drunk plenty and eaten well and I find being nice and warm helps quicken the donation. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.226.18 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC) apparently the U.K. Record is 3 minutes, 32 seconds. I've only done it in 4 minutes, 27 seconds.

src: i.ytimg.com

Invigoration/Benefits

"Anecdotally, elderly people in good health have reported feeling invigorated by giving blood on a regular basis."

Is this original research, or even accurate? Anecdotally, I have felt invigorated from donating blood, and I am 23. NTK 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I've never felt invigorated. Feel-good for having done something good isn't the same thing. Anecdoatally again, I've heard that smokers get an extra 'kick' if they ignore the advice and light up immediatly afterwards. Similarly alcohol has a faster effect. --JBellis 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Burns 650 calories may well be true but is hardly a benefit as donors need to eat extra to make up for the lost calories and in my view is an unhelpful way of looking at donation.--JBellis 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I usually feel very tired, sometimes depressed after giving blood. It lasts 1-2 days. I think the feeling you get after donation is very subjective and may also depend on many factors (what you eat, physical activity, etc). In Quebec, you have to wait 56 days before giving blood again. Hopefully! Hugo Dufort 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and believe the caloric debt should be corrected and restored. First for the correction: if the pint of blood is equivalenced to a literal pound of flesh, that is worth at least 1000 Kcalories based on the equivalent amount of grilled marbled steak. But even that is an underestimate. The most efficient feed-lot animals (chicken or farmed fish) convert feed into flesh with less than 3o% caloric efficiency (just imagine the elaborate biochemistry involved in breaking down foodstuffs and resynthesizing more of yourself.) Thus the caloric debt is plausibly in excess of 3500 Kcal, the very amount which must be lost to shed a pound of weight. Sure the Red Cross gives you a donut or two, but few people treat themselves to the equivalent of a glutton's feast after a blood donation. The relevance of all this in my opinion is that donation at the maximum rate of 6X per year can easily offset the couple of pound upward drift that is common in middle age and beyond. To be sure, so could leaches!

I don't think that you can directly compare blood and muscle as blood clearly has a much higher proportion of water.--JBellis 19:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Blood is a good deal thicker than water! The packed red cell volume in males is 55% and the remaining plasma is 20% protein. By comparison, raw meat has 70% water by volume. I still hold that a pint of blood is a pound of flesh!

Blood is thicker than water. Whole blood has a density around 6% higher than water, though, so it's not *that* much.

Where does that 55% figure come from? The article on hematocrit indicates typical values of 42-52%, and in my (admittedly scanty) experience it's usually towards the low end of that range. And given that those red blood cells still contain a fair volume of water themselves... --Calair 01:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

55% is unusually high for a crit, and probably indicates either dehydration, some sort of iron overload, or just high altitude living. Too high of a crit makes the blood too thick to get around the body efficiently.

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia and won't try to reinsert the line I wrote about calories burned from donating blood without support from others. However, I searched blood donating on Wikipedia specifically for this information and I do think it is a helpful fact to know. While it is true that blood donated must be replenished by eating more, those whose bodies are less sensitive to blood donation may be able to consume additional nutrients more slowly than others, thereby achieving some minor weight loss advantage. More importantly, people on strict diets who count calories and still want to donate blood would find such information useful to know how much they should supplement their diets to compensate for nutrients lost during donation. Am I the only one with this opinion? JBellis, I'd appreciate your response.--Gimeral 21:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete your line from the article and I'm not a nutritionist so I couldn't really attempt to answer your question. I believe that it is medical advice to eat soon after doning. --JBellis 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JBellis for your response and sorry for confusing your actions with those of another. Jfdwolff, could I get your thoughts?--Gimeral 02:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please re-add this figure if you've got good reason to believe it's in the right ballpark. I just got back from giving blood and I was interested how many pizza slices I can eat to balance my ying and yang :) DavidBoden 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The may clinic lists 650 on their blood donation website. http://www.mayoclinic.org/donateblood/know.html, I've seen calculations to justify it elsewhere. DanD

First, donating blood does not "burn" calories. What it does is remove protein, fat and carbohydrate that will be replaced. Second, the replacement of plasma is in a day or two and is almost entirely water, so that's 55% of the pound of blood removed without having to require calories. Third, replacing red blood cells doesn't get started until five days after, and takes 4-8 weeks to complete, so there is no excuse for eating extra after donating. As for actual number of calories being removed, my calculations come to 425 for women and 460 for men (higher because of higher percent of blood is red blood cells). My calculations do not include the additional energy of synthesis of proteins, hemoglobin and cell membranes, so that might be the bridge to the higher estimate posted at the Mayo Clinic website. And yes, I have a doctorate in biochemistry.David notMD (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

src: previews.123rf.com

Preparation

I hear that in some countries (e.g. Italy) the session must happen in the morning and the donor is required not to have eaten anything for 12 hours before the donation, supposedly to get "purer" blood. Is that true? If so, why do other countries not do that? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why some blood banks may want to avoid overfed donors is that too much fatty food actually starts showing up in the plasma. Heavily lipemic plasma looks a lot like an orange smoothie, and since the tests (i.e. the anti-HIV EIA) on the blood are read by an optical device, they can't test it. The tradeoff is that hungry donors are more likely to faint, fall, or otherwise have problems. Most places I've dealt with feel that losing a unit or two is better than losing a donor (many studies and common sense point out that a donor who has a reaction is very unlikely to return), so they encourage donors to eat.

You're not thinking of blood tests maybe? Things like blood-sugar testing often require fasting before a sample's taken, but I've never heard of it in connection with donation before. --Calair 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found a reference

Bisogna essere a digiuno per donare sangue?

Il mattino del prelievo è preferibile essere a digiuno o aver fatto una colazione leggera a base di frutta fresca o spremute, thè o caffè poco zuccherati, pane non condito o altri carboidrati.

This roughly translates to

Q: Do I need to fast before I give blood?

A: In the morning of the drawing it's preferable to have fasted or have had a light breakfast based on dried fruit or fruit juice, tea or coffee with little sugar, bread with no dressing or other carbohydrates.

Other references mandate (as opposed to prefer) an 8-hour fast before the donation. In other countries I'm pretty sure they suggest to eat something before you give blood. PizzaMargherita 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Australian Red Cross certainly does[1]: "Please ensure that you drink plenty of fluids (at least four glasses) in the hours leading up to your donation and that you eat something healthy and substantial beforehand." American Red Cross[2] encourages donors to "Have a good breakfast or lunch", but also to avoid fatty foods because they can interfere with screening for diseases. Doesn't mention carbs, but I wonder if the Italian rules are for similar reasons? If somebody can find out, it might be worth adding to the page. --Calair 01:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

... yes in the US they do advise one to arrive on a full stomach :) so to avoid fainting afterwards maybe -- the donors are generally supposed to be able to drive themselves home after all! and by the way, they also require not to take any caffeine. Asking to fast before giving blood, odd... except if they offer real good lunch right after the deal, that might do it just as well, I guess. - Introvert ^~? 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"except if they offer real good lunch right after the deal"--funny you should say that, I was told they actually do...

"avoid fatty foods because they can interfere with screening for diseases"--This makes a lot of sense. The Italian guidelines seem to be: eat some carbs (though little sugar?!?), so you can stand up, but no fats please. PizzaMargherita 07:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The UK advice is Drink loads of liquid before and after you donate - and not the alcoholic variety please. Eat your regular meals too, and do let us know if you've skipped a meal on the day.[3] Note no abstaining from caffeine or smoking. I think that it's question of balance between getting 'good' blood and taking care of doners.

I have donated blood almost every two months in the United States for the past several years, first with the Red Cross and more recently with the NY Blood Center. They definitely do encourage you to eat before donating; the last time I donated they specifically asked about it during the screening. I have never been told to avoid fatty foods and definitely not to avoid caffeine; strange that you mention that, because I have become a coffee addict and definitely had a good bit of caffeine in my system the last time I donated. In fact in all the literature I have read I have not even found any proscriptions against drinking alcohol beforehand either, obviously they are not going to let someone stumble in drunk and donate, but it seems that even if someone had a drink or two beforehand that is acceptable, given the fact that they ask fifty different questions, including if you have taken aspirin in the past two days, they certainly aren't neglecting to ask about fatty foods, caffeine, or alcohol. NTK 12:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "{{unreferenced|date=August 2006}}" tag on this section, I took the liberty of rewriting this section. I moved the "check with your local blood bank" sentence to the top of the paragraph to emphasize its importance. I rewrote the description of the requirements a bit, relying specifically on the web sites for several countries' blood banks. If other countries have substantially different requirements from the sources I used, please make the appropriate edits (like you need me to tell you that). I left the "some countries require a fast" sentence in place, even though none of the countries I cited to impose that requirement; I added the "{{citeneeded}}" tag to that sentence. I see that there's a possible cite earlier in this discussion, but I didn't want to add that cite myself since I can't verify the translation. Kickaha Ota 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

src: media.npr.org

Complications

I've been trying to find more information about complications and so far the internet has not turned up anything other then bruising. No time duration for bruising or other symptoms are discussed. I also have a hard time believing 1% of people get bruises as for me personally it's more like 25% of the time. Regardless a week ago I gave blood and the last few nights I've been waking up with my arm really hurting. The bruise is also showing a bit of a direction towards my wrist. A slightly injured shoulder above the arm is really starting to hurt in concert with the arm during the night... Could laying down cause an increase in the pain compared to standing? Should I seek medical attention? Has there been anyone else have these kind of symptoms? It would be nice to have more information or a link to more in-depth complication studies. --Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeHorlacher (talk o contribs)

Having real complications here will stun a lot of protential blood donators. Listen to your own body. Not the propaganda. --Leo 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, so you mean this article should be written with the express purpose of encouraging blood donation, rather than providing balanced facts as completely as we can to produce an encyclopedic article? 86.139.237.132 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that this article should present *all* the facts, and that it should not be an ad for blood donation. At the same time, it is also true that common-sense risk assessment should be applied to the more remote risks. If no one has enough courage to donate blood, then thousands of injured people who need blood each year (maybe you, maybe me, maybe tomorrow) are pretty much screwed. I just edited the complications section to reflect this balance. -- ¾-10 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I see someone just deleted part of my edit, and I won't try to re-insert it since it is not really encyclopedic; however, it is still very true, so I am leaving it here in my talk page comments in case it encourages some little bit of grown-up thinking in anyone who may read it here: If you were hurt in a car collision tomorrow, would you wish that someone had summoned up enough courage to donate blood today, despite the very small risk of serious complications? If your child/parent/sibling/spouse needed blood emergently tomorrow, would you wish that some donor had shown an ounce of courage today? -- ¾-10 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric does not belong in encyclopedia articles, not even positive rhetoric. Let the facts speak for themselves. NTK (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Which was my point exactly when I said that "I won't try to re-insert it since it is not really encyclopedic". -- ¾-10 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of this may depend on what is defined as "bruising". Myself, I usually wind up with a small bruise right by the needle puncture point, but nothing more. I've once had a more serious one (had to do with an unexperienced nurse who didn't get the position right at first and had to reposition the needle while it was in my arm) and I've known a few people who are generally prone to bruising and have suffered more serious problems. For what it's worth, they mention offhand the "serious issues" due to the needle hitting a nerve. I've had it happen once, causing constant midlevel pain for a few days and weakness of the arm. I had a roommate in college who lost use of his right arm for a day, but that was once in a history of years of donations for him. Ultimately, as with any medical procedure, there's a small chance of severe complications and a decent chance of very minor ones for most people. And there will always be a few people who have serious reactions. Incidentally, psychology has a lot to do with it. The human brain encodes certain fears very broadly so that if you experience them once or twice, you can get scarred for a good amount of time. I don't remember blood donation being one of them, but the symptoms of dizziness are close enough to food poisoning, a known primitive fear, that I could see crossover. -Fuzzy (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lightheadedness

I have donated blood a total of six times. Around the fourth time I got mildly light headed and needed to lay down. Now I gave for the 6th time today and I nearly passed out. I was at the point where my hands and feet felt like they were asleep (pins and needles.) While recovering one of the phlebotomists(?) mentioned that some people, once they start getting light headed from donating, actually have a higher chance in the future of passing out and will actually experience a worsening of that complication on subsequent donations. I don't want to stop donating (as was suggested) so I was looking for information on this. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so maybe it should be included in this section of the article? I'm looking for any research or information on that now and if I find any I'll post it here. --Jeremyh113 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any reason for this, except that psychologically it could become an expectation. Unless you were not spacing your donations enough, I think the most important thing is to make sure you are properly hydrated and relaxed in advance. Having eaten some carbohydrates a while beforehand might help too. If you want an expert opinion, ask a doctor. NTK (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotally, the lightheadedness is often a physiological reaction of the body to some "damage"/needle/blood loss. Similar to when you are cold the body will try to reroute/conserve blood and cause some loss of blood to the head. I find that a cold washcloth on the back of my neck is usually more then adequate to keep me from tunnel-vision.-Mike R

Tell the phlebotomist of your concern before you start. The response should be to elevate your feet and put a coldpack behind your neck (Mike R's note). And to stay prone a bit longer than usual before standing up. Part of the problem is that if you have had a few bad experiences, the anxiety contributes to triggering the lightheadedness.David notMD (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Removing external links

I'm proposing culling the entire "External links" section. Having a list of blood donation agencies is

1. something anyone can find using Google (especially if they're looking for a local agency), and
2. adds nothing to the article.

Unless there is some serious objection, I'll remove it soonish. dewet|(TM) 17:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't add much to the article as it stands, but national blood donation agencies are significant enough that ideally, they'd have articles of their own one day. Rather than completely deleting the info, maybe shunt it to something like List of blood donation agencies, and link to that from the See Also here? --Calair 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My problem isn't so much with the list (although I share JFW's notability concern, and it would be a mission to keep updated), but rather the external linking; we could definitely start the "List of..." article you propose, and then simply have wikilinks to the agencies. While they are redlinks, they'll be invitations for others to start editing. Is that a suitable compromise? dewet|(TM) 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Calair 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright, done. dewet|(TM) 10:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What would make these individual organisations notable? JFW | T@lk 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As an example, "Australian Red Cross Blood Service" gets 69 thousand Google hits. The ARCBS has been the subject of major Australian news stories more than once - e.g. a Hep C contamination scandal, and controversy over what should be done to protect blood recipients from CJD. (There was a front-page blowup a while back about blood freely donated to the ARCBS ending up in for-product research or products, though it would take me more digging to get good refs for that one.) It has an annual operating budget of AU$260 million[4].

A national blood bank is a significant part of a nation's health system, and has to deal with some fairly controversial issues - while things like Hep C and CJD affect every blood service, each organisation deals with those issues in its own ways, and that tends to provide enough of interest to make them notable. I'm not volunteering to write the content for those articles myself, but I do think there is enough out there to make most if not all of the national-level blood banks notable when somebody gets around to writing it. --Calair 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• At least some of those external links served as source references for the otherwise purely speculative article... don't you think? - Introvert ~? 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument (at least according to WP:EL) is still that it doesn't add anything to the article that you couldn't find using a search engine. And if I'm looking for more information, it certainly doesn't help that I'm presented with 10+ links to different sites -- I won't know where to start looking. But the problem is that once you allow one, you open the floodgates. dewet|(TM) 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your point that there must be a fair balance, and that flooding with generic external links never seems too good an idea... but, there must be sources cited too, isn't that what wikipedia is about? The solution seems to be, not to just add links to those sites relevant yet only providing some general info, or exacting from the readers lots of extra movements in search of the information, but to cite as precisely as possible only those pages, which corroborate (if not expand upon) the information presented in the article. That's my humble understanding of this weird and wonderful world of wikipedia... ~? - Introvert ~? 04:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

src: osocio.org

Use/discard bar codes?

When I donated in the USA in 1997, I was given two bar-code stickers and left in privacy to stick the appropriate one on the blood bag (or maybe it was on the paperwork, I don't now recall). The idea was to deal with the danger of at-risk people giving blood just to get a free HIV test - one sticker meant the blood would be tested but not given to patients, the other meant it was OK to use (pending the usual testing). Anybody more familiar with the US donation process feel like mentioning this in the article? --Calair 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the US has no one standard set of blood procedures. The American Red Cross is a nationwide provider with standardized procedures, so that's a good reference point, but there are regional blood centers where different procedures are used. For example, at the center where I currently donate, patients are not given barcodes in this way. Instead, they are given a phone number that they can call after the donation if the blood should not be used (and several questions asked during the screening procedure emphasize that blood donation is not an appropriate way to get an HIV test). Kickaha Ota 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just donated today actually. Here in Canada, they have this. After the nurse checks your blood pressure, heart rate, checks your arms for needle marks, asks all the high risk questions etc. etc. they leave the little cubicle and there are two stickers that say "Use my blood" and "Do not use my blood". It's basically just because they know that there will be people who will use blood donation as a means of having themselves tested for STD's and there's really nothing they can do about it. This is just because the tests are not 100% accurate and a person will be able to get themselves tested still but they can anonymously have their blood discarded rather than used, they still get tested but hopefully have the sense to keep others away from such a risk. In Canada all blood donation is handled by Canadian Blood Services, a government organization so everything is standard.

The same process is used by Héma-Québec. -- Hugo Dufort 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have donated 8 times so far from 2003 to present (2007). I am in the mid-Atlantic USA. I have been given the anonymous barcodes when I donated at one site (Am Red Cross regional headquarters), but not at other sites (hospital blood drives). -- ¾-10 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that all 8 donations were to ARC; just not all at the regional HQ. So the process variation noted above was within ARC itself. -- ¾-10 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

src: www.harveston.com.my

fainting

I just donated blood today and I fainted near the end of operation. I lost all energy and everything went black, then I remember waking up with doctors struggling to keep me down because I was really tense (it was quite scary)

I noticed the article make no mention of fainting, perhaps that should be added.

Agreed, I fainted today too, and I think it is a part of blood donation and should be included. Also, my blood was taken with a bloodmobile, maybe those should be mentioned too.

The 'Complications' section says: "During or shortly after the donation, hypovolemia may occasionally lead to a drop in blood pressure with some donors experiencing light-headedness or fainting." --Calair 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it should be in there. It isn't overly common in healthy individuals, but the lowered blood sugar levels can cause lightheadedness, dizzyness, fainting etc. etc. That's what the cookies and sugar juice are for.

We had a blood drive at my school that I decided to take part in. My blood pressure is already fairly low - it's between 90-120 / 50-60 most days. Before I gave blood, it was 118/56. About five minutes into the procedure, I began feeling light-headed and started to see stars, so I decided I'd ask the nurse "About how light-headed should I feel?" just to double-check. She then told me that I shouldn't be at all, so she quickly disconnected the needle, elevated my legs, and laid my head down flat. Then she gave me cool, damp rags for my head and stomach as well as a can of soda. It was somewhat alarming, but it happened to several other people that day - I noticed one of my friends in the same position as I was leaving the donation area, and before I donated I watched as a nurse laid a girl on the floor and put her feet up on a chair, also placing damp towels on her head and stomach.

So apparently, it's normal. Dakana2511 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in charge of organising a blood drive for my school. We took a group of 8 each week and about every two weeks someone would faint. It usually occurs in lighter people as a standardised amount of blood is taken (470mLs in Australia) as long as you weigh 50kg, and as lighter people have less blood, the rapid decline in blood volume results in not enough oxygen carried to the brain - hence the fainting. I fainted during my last donation, and it was so embarassing. I was talking to my friend and aparently I stopped, went tense and pulled a wierd face. I woke up with like 4 nurses around me, looking like i was dying. I felt fine, but it was pretty shocking, not to mention embarassing, to wake up with 4 faces frantically assessing you. I haven't been back since :S But I feel I probably should soon. Pure motion 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

External link as resource?

I posted a question at the List of blood donation agencies talk seeking input from anyone interested and able to spare a few minutes and check out the reference in question... is the site indeed a valuable resource, any thoughts? ~ thanks much in advance for help - Introvert o ~ 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, you`d better name some outstanding people, who donated or did smth as blood volunteers. This information is needed. Thow it is not so simple to get it (my own experience). --Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.9.254 (talk o contribs) on 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I agree. - Introvert o ~ 08:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Donations vs. Selling

Should there be something in this article about why blood cannot be sold (but plasma can) in the United States? (I'd add it if I could remember, but sadly I do not.) --Dr Archeville 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about this topic too. I donate blood regularly, but often I wonder why I should go through this expense of time and discomfort without compensation on the behalf of someone getting a surgery--maybe even a cosmetic surgery--if the person undergoing the surgery has the ability to compensate me for my efforts. I am happy to donate blood to the poor who can't afford it, but why the charity for the rich? I live in the U.S. and most people in this country have more money than I do. There are clearly no widespread ideas that "blood should be free for everyone," because the blood donation agency and the hospital both charge the patient for my blood. --L. Bartlett 03:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think this is an important subject to include (or link to a new article). IMO the selling of blood has played a role in spreading blood born diseases such as HIV (eg injection drug users selling blood to get a fix). It was also an impetus in the Health_Management_Associates_Scandal. --Mm1972 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Paying money for blood donations is plain and simple a bad idea. It's unfortunate, but the bottom line is that when you have a process by which people can make money quickly, easily, and without having to sacrifice anything tangible they're going to miss, it attracts a certain demographic. Such a program is more likely to attract members of the lower economic group of society. Statistically, the least well off members of society are far more likely to carry transmitable diseases such as hepatitis, HIV, etc. etc. It isn't unfair or prejudiced anymore than insurance companies charging higher premiums for younger drivers is. It's merely a statistical truth. Plasma donation, at least in Canada whose system I'm familiar with, is a more involved process than blood donation. Under certain circumstances, those who wish to donate must have a physical examination and are put through more rigorous screening than blood donars are.

Here in Canada I think this is solid and sale of blood isn't something up for debate. Due to the private nature of American health care though, I can see it being a different story. But even still, though the testing methods for blood are extremely accurate, as we know, mistakes can always be made. The costs of compensation of patients who have been exposed to tainted blood is absolutely enormous in some cases. So they have to take any possible precaution they can do ensure their sources are safe. That's why they ask all those ultra personal questions ie. "Have you paid for sex.... Have you had sex with another man.... etc. etc." It's all risk assessment.

The key point about giving rather than selling is that there is little incentive to lie in response to the 'personal' questions if there is no financial incentive.--JBellis 14:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the whole answer to this question, but I think besides being a more involved process, plasma is "cleaned" of many viral or bacterial diseases that can be present in whole blood, so the risk of paying for it is lower. Not sure about prions though. NTK 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true, as said above, that someone who can get money for their donation is financially motivated to lie on the health-risk questions. So that's one reason not to pay for donations. Also, regarding the fact that Am Red Cross, for example, gets your blood for free but sells it for money, people usually forget that those phlebotomists have to get paid, and the ARC has to buy the truck, the laptop computers, the needles, tubing, bags, labels, iodine, alcohol swabs, food/drink, distribution system, lawyers, biz admin, etc. ARC says that it is a low-margin to break-even business. Maybe they make 1 or 3 percent more margin than they claim they do, but that still doesn't translate to having money to pay the donors. -- ¾-10 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloodmobile

I started a new page on bloodmobiles but I have no idea how to format a page. If anyone feels nice they can make it so it fits in with this page better, expand it, or merge it with this one whilst adding information. That would be greatly appreciated. --Meissmart 15:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the information on Bloodmobile to this article's introduction and made a redirect to this article, but if it is worth expanding it as an article in its' own right then it can still be revived. Alternately start a new section in this article to expand the topic. --apers0n 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--Meissmart 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GA status

On hold: entire sections are unreferenced and the stray link at the bottom of the Complications section needs taken care of. Rlevse 01:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

GA failed, no response to concerns. Rlevse 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Frequency

In Quebec (where I live), we have to wait at least 56 days between two donations [5]. Maybe it would be nice to include similar figures for the Rest of Canada, the US, and other countries. Hugo Dufort 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The waiting period is noted in the Recovery section, although not stating the exact number of days as it may be different depending on the country, blood bank rulings, etc. Such kind of generalized phrasing I think is quite correct here because I don't believe that over-detailing with all the rules from all over would be justified but at the same time, only stating some particular rules from some particular country or place would be a bias that better be avoided. I hope my answer satisfies you but please post further if I missed the point or if you think you disagree. Regards - Introvert o ~ 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're better off giving an approximate figure and referring people to their local blood banks for country-specific info. Occasionally it's useful to give a specific country as an example, but we shouldn't expect this article to be exhaustive in detailing every country's requirements. --Calair 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a few problems that listing exact frequency times might pose (some mentioned already), however there can be a use for it. I propose listing a table with following columns 1) Country 2) geographical area (if applicable, i.e. province, state, voivodeship, etc.) 3) Link to organization responsible for collecting blood (e.g. Canadian Blood Services for Canada) 4) Frequency 5) Comments (provide additional information or a cautious warning, depending on what is being reported). This type of a layout can potentially show the diversity of regulations that exist in the world. Thoughts?Arturkjakub (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Best before

How long does the blood last when not frozen for 10 years? 193.111.195.35 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the cool video here: http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/page/E_Discovery?OpenDocument

Red Cells can be stored refrigerated for 42 days, plasma can be frozen and kept for 1 year, and platelets are kept at room temperature for up to 5 days. It doesn't mention whole blood. Hmm.

Oh, a different page on the same site says 35 days for whole blood. http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/page/Blood%20Shelf%20Life?OpenDocument

That's in Canada, but it is probably similar in most other countries. 207.81.137.81 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What is heavy lifting?

"Donors are discouraged from heavy exercise or lifting until the next day."

Does use of crutches count as heavy lifting? Are people who use crutches disqualified from donating? American Red Cross's tips page doesn't seem to state one way or the other what counts as "strenuous physical activity or heavy lifting", and I can't tell from ARC's eligibility guidelines whether use of crutches makes one not "healthy". Are other organizations' sites more informative? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the general principle in the US is if you think it might be "strenuous physical activity or heavy lifting", then it is. Skipping normal excercise for the remainder of the day after giving blood is less harmful than attempting too much. Jon 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had the reasoning given to me in two forms. First, the loss of blood causes a depletion of nutrients and triggers some bodily reactions, which will result in minor fatigue and your muscles seizing up more easily. Secondly, if you're doing lifting, you're temporarily increasing the pressure and strain in the blood vessels of your arm, so you're more likely to spring a leak before the body can better seal the hole. -Fuzzy (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Donor Card

When do you get a donor card in Canada? I donated once and plan on doing it again. WestJet 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They should mail it to you a few weeks after your first donation. If it has been more than a month you might want to call them and find out what's up. 207.81.137.81 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is picture misleading?

Image:Blood_Donation_12-07-06_1.JPG A reader of the German Wikipedia did notice that the headline picture is somewhat misleading - in reality nobody is striped so heavily and there will be no blood samples taken along with the blood donation. That's wrong. Sadly we don't have a better picture at hand so I think the best plan is to modify the caption the of picture pointing the reader to the fact that this is a variant used by the US Navy - obviously showing a standard that is used in the field, this [6] shows the same setup and here [7] we have the blood samples again. Guidod 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why showing blood samples is 'misleading' - the US Navy certainly isn't the only organisation that does it. (It's commonplace in Australia, for instance). I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'striped' here. --Calair 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad wording - the reader did notice that the patient on the picture is taped all over as if taking a longer treatment. And you wouldn't see blood samples and scissors under the ellbow in reality. - Perhaps it is more commonplaces in other parts of the world though. Guidod 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Taping like that is normal when donating blood in Australia, at least. I don't understand what you mean by saying you wouldn't see those things "in reality" - AFAIK, that is a genuine photo of blood donation in the USA. No doubt there are small differences in procedure, but that doesn't make the picture misleading. --Calair 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the technique demonstrated in this photo is genuine, resembling the ordinary practice of the American Red Cross. The tape is there to keep the needle from popping out. Between venipuncture and when the main bag begins to be filled, a sample of blood is drawn through the IV line into a smaller bag, and this bag is emptied into test tubes that go to the lab in order to keep hepatitis and HIV out of the blood supply and to label the blood with red/white/platelet cell counts. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so the established procedures do differ indeed. I'll communicate that back. Guidod 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a question- That picture of the needle says it's from Australia. I planned on donating blood, but is the needle that large in America? Because if it is, I just might rethink my plans! That thing is huge! Thanks! Lizzysama 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found out that it's the same size. I'm still gonna force myself to do it. ;) Lizzysama 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, blood donation needles are larger than the needles used for laboratory blood tests, and plateletpheresis needles may be larger than whole blood needles. Larger needles are harder to clot during donation. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents. As a regular donor with Blood Assurance, I can say that the picture is consistent with their procedure as well. They also take blood samples during the process. Prometheus^-X303- 13:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the same size of needle they always used when I was able to give blood. However normally, for most of the procedure they have a light bandage that's not attached to anything on top of the needle, whose sole purpose seems to be to keep the donor from freaking out from seeing the needle. Jon 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an 8-time donor to the ARC in the USA. Nothing in that USN photo looks particularly different from standard ARC practice. I don't think that those are scissors, I think it is a plastic clamp that simply pinches shut the lumen of the tubing when the bag is full and it's time to stop drawing blood. They do tape the tubing to your arm in one or two spots to keep it from moving and thus moving the needle around. Potential donors, rest assured that the stuff in the photo is normal--nothing scary. -- ¾-10 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have donated over ten times, but I don't remember the number. That looks typical of how donations are done when I donate. The thing on the bicep is a tourniquet not tape. Then there are two pieces of tape to secure the blue thing which holds the needle after donation is complete. After the bag is filled, and the tape removed, the phlebotomist will hold the blue thing in one hand and pull on the tubing with the other. The needle will go inside the blue thing and I think it locks in place. The phlebotomist does not touch the needle once it has punctured the donor. This would prevent potential injury to anyone who has to handle this stuff later. The scissors under the elbow is clamp that is used to pinch the tubing. If you follow the line near the donor's watch, you'll see that it splits. One line goes down to the bag. The other one goes to that yellow thing which has a needle inside. The test tubes have rubber tops which get pierced by the needle allowing blood to flow into the tube. I don't know what prevents the blood from flowing out when the tube is not there though. Usually when I donate, the tubes are not filled until after the bag is filled. Ae86 (talk) --Preceding comment was added at 04:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Double red" and ALYX

Some potential info for the article: Donations of two units of red cells at Blood Assurance are done with the ALYX machine. One of it's side effects is a slight chill due to the return fluids being at room temperature instead of body temp. Prometheus^-X303- 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't read this earlier. I am not surprised about this! When I did a double-red for ARC in 2006, I was *freezing* for roughly the second half of the session. I was doing some heavy-duty shivering. It occurred to me immediately that maybe the return line was putting it back in me at less than body temp, and I asked if that was the case, but they said, "You haven't started getting the return yet!" Either the return flow is queued till the end, and my cold feeling was simply a result of being temporarily 2 pints low, or maybe they just told me a tall tale to keep me calm! :-) Anyway, within 1 minute of being done and standing up, I felt fine and no longer cold. Problem solved--now every time I donate I wear a ton of clothing--sweater, etc. -- ¾-10 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Restrictions on Who can Donate

Weight Restrictions

Maybe it should be specifically included somewhere that many organisations require the donor to be above a certain weight? I know in the UK, US and many parts of europe, the donor must be at least 50 kg or 110 lb. Not sure quite how wide spread this is though. just a little bitter that I'm not heavy enough, 141.2.246.31 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

American Red Cross still will not accept blood from any male who admits to having homosexual sex. They do this citing the gay population as being a "high risk" group for contracting HIV. They do not even allow for donation if a gay male has been celibate for years and tests negative. There has been some controversy about whether this is discrimination.

There are also restrictions (some temporary, some permanent) for the following situations.

Acupuncture Age Allergy, Stuffy Nose, Itchy Eyes, Dry Cough Antibiotics Aspirin Asthma Birth Control Bleeding Disorders Blood Pressure, High Blood Pressure, Low Blood Transfusion Cancer Chronic Illnesses Cold, Flu Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Variant (vCJD);"Mad Cow Disease" Dental Procedures Donation Intervals Heart Disease Heart Murmur, Heart Valve Disorder Hemochromatosis Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, Blood Count Hepatitis, Jaundice Hepatitis Exposure Herpes (see Sexually Transmitted Disease) HIV, AIDS Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRP) HPV (see Sexually Transmitted Disease) HPV vaccine (see Immunization, Vaccination) Hypertension, High Blood Pressure Immunization, Vaccination Infections Insulin (bovine) Intravenous Drug Use Malaria Medications Organ/Tissue Transplants Piercing (ears, body), Electrolysis Pregnancy, Nursing Sexually Transmitted Disease Sickle Cell Syphilis/Gonorrhea Tattoo Tuberculosis Travel Outside of U.S., Immigration Vaccinations Venereal Diseases

Baby blood donation

I removed the statement that the Red Cross requires baby blood donors to be type O because I am not type O and received a phone call from the Red Cross office with whom I donate that my blood is eligible to be donated to babies. Some offices may require this but the Red Cross in general clearly does not. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Es330td (talk o contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blood. It's in you to live. There are obviously risks in blood donation, so instead of being biased, include risks. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.140.227 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't added this into the article as I'm a wiki-virgin (this comment is my first foray!), but I thought it might be worth mentioning that in terms of who can donate blood, in the UK they won't let you give blood if you've had a baby within the past 9 months (http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/flash_questions.html). I've no idea why not. Traveller palm (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Atypical antibodies in blood can change during pregnancy, so the wait is there to give the body's immune system time to sort it all out so that it shows up properly on the antibody screens they do when selecting a unit of blood to transfuse. Undetected antibodies can cause severe problems during transfusion. It isn't about disease, it's a quirk with the complex immunology of blood typing. SDY (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Benefits: toxins

"In addition to excess iron, a small amount of other toxic chemicals (such as mercury, pesticides, and fire retardants) leaves the donor's blood stream"

I've removed this from the benefits section before, and I've no interest in getting into an edit war. Yes, it's technically true, but that doesn't mean it should be in the article.

It's bad for the recipient: If someone actually does have some sort of significant contamination in their blood, they're putting it into a medical product. That product then gets put into someone else, usually someone who is already in bad shape and cannot afford any problems they can avoid.

It won't help the donor: Most of these toxins would be removed from the body by normal metabolic processes anyway or are bound into something other than circulating blood. Therapeutic phlebotomy isn't indicated for any poisoning but chronic iron poisoning (hemachromatosis).

It's either irrelevant or actively harmful. It's from a marketing study, i.e. any half-truth they can tell that might get donors to come in. Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted the comment left at deletion as the information was correct, but people should not know about it, I took offense at that.

If the total effect for the donor and receiver combined is not positive, it probably does not belong in the benefits section.

If the effect is insignificant, or the source is deceptive, by all means remove it citing that.

--82.182.37.3 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement is true but it is also misleading. It's like saying the earth is not round because it's not a perfect sphere. Removing correct information is not always censorship.

There will be no article which directly refutes a minor comment in a publication unattached to the blood collection industry. The statement isn't significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. Citations of benefits from a medical procedure should be from medical sources.

I don't mean to be offensive, but the reality is that I believe that these statements have no place in an article on blood donation. A quick google search of sources from the ARC (http://www.givelife2.org/donor/top10.asp), Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.org/donateblood/know.html), AABB (http://www.aabb.org/Content/Donate_Blood/Why_Donate/), and the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (http://www.ibts.ie/generic.cfm?mID=2&sID=8).

These are all what I would consider trusted sources, and that they do not mention it makes me highly suspicious of the comment because it is not cited from a reliable source. This falls under the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy, as far as I can tell.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a difference between our opinions. So I won't readd it.

If you remove statements with sources, you have to make at least some effort to discredit them, ("this effect is insignificant") would probably have done it for me.

--82.182.37.3 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy governing this case is WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV. So even if trace amounts of toxins leave the body with the unit of blood, we don't need to mention such minutiae, especially not without a citation that it provides a medical benefit. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Benefits: uncited "invigoration"

This is also from the marketing article, and is quoted verbatim. They do not give any supporting citation or specifics.

I'd propose deleting it and leaving it off unless and until some sort of real support can be generated for it.

Much like direct payment, benefits can induce people to lie about their health in order to donate. I know selfless acts of charity don't sit well with the "me" generation, but they have a real effect on the safety of the blood supply. Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see comments under toxins.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is American in more ways than one in that is getting to be overweight.

Some proposals for daughter/merge articles:

1. History of blood donation, maybe just move information to blood bankhistory section. 2. Move anything related to Plateletpheresis to Plateletpheresis, since this article is heavily redundant. 3. The controversy about MSM donations should probably be its own article. This has been heavily discussed, and it's really more of a civil rights issue than a medical issue. The reason for it is painfully obvious if you read CDC statistics on who has HIV in the US, but regarding MSM as "unclean" is definitely something that people will be offended by.

Some proposals for weight loss:

1. Remove the specifics on donor eligibility and replace them with more general statements. The specifics listed are US standards, which are grossly similar to standards in Australia and Scotland (at least from what I can glean from their posted online questionnaires), but not exactly the same.

2. Remove the "donors for babies" section. It's true, but it's WTMI for a general knowledge encyclopedia article.

3. The ferritin link to heart disease should probably be pared down some or removed. It's new research. Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove globalize tag

Any objections? The person who added it hasn't responded to a request for comment on their talk page. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk o contribs) 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the article is global enough since no specifics have been pointed out. The mention of Ghana in the lead section is a nice touch. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article by June 14th

I'm going to attempt to make this article meet Good Article, if not Featured Article, by the WHO day. I will probably be making some aggressive changes to the article, along the following lines:

Subpages to be made:

1. Transfusion transmitted infection
2. Blood drive
3. Plasmapheresis - split into daughter pages of treatment vs. donation

• (Generally) Lead: Whole blood vs. apheresis

• (Generally) Process section: reads too much like instructions.
  • "Preparation" section: remove per WP:NOTMANUAL
  • "Screening": restructure to:
    • Legal aspects (paid or not, consent, deferral registries, etc...)
    • Medical/social History (current article has WTMI on vCJD)
    • Physical findings (BP, pulse, Hgb/Hct link to main article at Blood Test)
    • Testing (WHO-recommended tests, other diseases to be tested for, methodology)
  • "Donation": Split by component
    • Whole Blood - cover here, point to main article for the processing
    • Plasmapheresis - point to main article
    • Plateletpheresis - point to main article
    • Apheresis RBCs
  • "After the donation": cut Recovery and Post donation information into following section-
    • Recovery (bandaging, time to restore lost blood, time before next donation)
    • Complications (section content is fine, could use some copy editing, formatting, and sourcing)
  • Benefits and Incentives (section content is fine, some formatting and copy editing needed)
  • Types of donations
    • Allogeneic (brief note explaining that this is "default", baby donor *briefly*)
    • Autologous (section is fine)
    • Directed (historically relevant)
    • For Further Manufacturing (Recovered Plasma, Source Plasma)

Did I miss anything? Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good... I so agree with the prep section, it's not needed at all. Good luck, hopefully it makes it. --WestJet (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Points to consider for further improvement of this article:

• Three different pictures that could be used in the lead: the Australian one (which should go in a history section, a possible expansion to the article), the Navy one (I'm avoiding it because I'm trying to avoid someone adding back the US-centric tag, though I think the article is far more globalized now), and the bus, which goes with the discussion of blood drives in the lead. I had originally envisioned a separate blood drive article.
• The lead isn't really a summary, it's just an introduction. WP:LEAD
• I've tried to cut back or explain the jargon, but I talk this jargon in my sleep, so I'm hardly a good person to look for problems. WP:JARGON
• The article isn't particularly stable (one of the Good Article criteria) in that I've just gone through a pretty substantial rewrite. The rewrite didn't change the content all that much, but I'd like to have a few more eyes pass over it before trying a GA review. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood donation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. There are presently quite a few things that need addressing:

• General comments
  • Several headers have unnecessary capitals ("Site Preparation", "Whole Blood") Fixed (SDY)
  • Most references are bare URLs. They need to involve {{cite web}} or {{cite journal}} templates, or some other descriptions as to the character of the source. Many references are also placed before the final "." in sentences. Fixed (SDY)
    • Position of references in relation to punctuation is not fixed. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm changing it because it has been mostly changed, but for the record, placing punctuation after references is not wrong. Read WP:CITE#Ref tags and punctuation, which more or less follows the same conventions as British v. American English usage: be consistent. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Some sources are tertiary/news sources (e.g. Medicalnewstoday); usually, a more direct source can be identified from the academic literature; I would place strong emphasis on authoritative sources from transfusion-related journals (Vox Sanguinis being a prominent one) and guidelines/information from transfusion organisations (e.g. the National Blood Service in the UK) Fixed (SDY)
  • The external links need a good rinse Fixed (SDY)
• Terminology [...]
  • I would rename this to "Types of donation" Fixed (SDY)
  • Most of the paragraph has no inline citations Fixed (SDY)
• Process
  • Mostly good in content but there are many examples that need to be put in a larger framework. It also uses a lot of subsections, suggesting that perhaps the section needs breaking up. Fixed (SDY)
  • More needs to be said about the storage of particular products. For instance, platelets can only be kept for a few days and hence the turnover is much more rapid. As a result, platelet donors need to be able to donate at a moment's notice.

Not sure how to include this, really, without including a complete overview of the transfusion process. A "supply and demand" section might be worth adding. (SDY)

• Complications
  • Is there any reason why the list of complications needs to be bulleted?

Not really, and Fixed (SDY)

• • The paragraphs on physical trauma and reactions after apheresis lack sources

Some actions taken, but not 100% sure it's addressed. (SDY)

• Benefits and incentives
  • Some sections are unreferenced, while they claim exceptional practices that would require a source.

Some additional sources added. ((SDY))

Hope this all works out. I'll try to do some copyediting myself if time permits. I will also ask Snowmanradio (talk · contribs) to offer some expertise. JFW | T@lk 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not clear what you mean by "put in a larger framework."
  • For instance, it presently lists only four common blood-borne diseases. It insinuates that others may be checked, but does not really indicate what kind of diseases would need screening for. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the tests (and screening questions) that are used vary based on the country and the component, and trying to list all possible permutations here wouldn't be PRTTI. Transfusion transmitted infection is an article that could be written to cover all the possible bugs (HIV, HBV, HCV, HAV, CMV, HTLV, SARS, Chagas, Babesiosis, Malaria, Leishmaniasis, vCJD, Syphilis, SFV, and others). I could give long lists of example testing algorithms, and if you look at older versions of the article a list existed. It was removed as part of part of the globalization complaint, so I reduced it to the "WHO recommended" list. As you might guess from the notes on frequency of donation, there isn't a lot of consensus out there on "the right way" to do this.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the journal cites could get sticky (Vox Sang, etc... aren't openly available online, though I think I can at least get to Transfusion through AABB's web site). For many of these things, I could cite dead tree editions (AABB tech manual for one), will just take some leg work.

• I realise that this is often a bit difficult. Guidelines from large organisations tend to be available somewhere, but dead tree editions are sometimes the best... JFW | T@lk 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The rest of it should be easy enough to fix.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not on home ground with blood donation and I am not an expert in this subject, but I can see that the article needs a lot of attention to the format of references and to general copy editing. I think that some of the descriptions of methods are near to a "how to" and will need precise careful referencing. I would like to see more about the general care of the blood donor, and perhaps a little about blood demands in war or a natural disaster. There are many problems with the article. For example; in the introduction:

• Introduction too short.
• Why is "Blood Donor Day" emboldened? Fixed (SDY)
• There are many blood products besides rho(D) immune globulin. Fixed (SDY)
• The main uses of donated blood, the average volume of a unit of blood and the volume taken from one donor, and method of storage, and its shelf life in a refrigerator might be included in the introduction

Some things added. Shelf life isn't really a donation issue without supply and demand, which would be rather difficult to cite authoritatively. {SDY)

• I have not heard of the term "blood drive" in the UK, and I wonder if this term might be too colloquial for the introduction. Is "blood donation session" suitable?

It's US jargon. Generalized, added the equivalent British expression. (SDY)

• Blood transfusion is possible because of a complete body of knowledge, including Landsteiner's early discoveries, and I think the emphasis of this part of the introduction needs modifying. Fixed (SDY)
• I am not sure if blood donation sessions are based at schools, but I think they may be at universities.
• The actual drawing of blood can be done by a variety of methods. This is vague. Fixed (SDY)
• Blood group and rare blood groups are not mentioned. Fixed (SDY)Snowman (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The intro could use some work, I agree.
• "Blood Drive" may be a US term, though some quick googling shows it's used in Australia, Israel, and India as well. It's jargon, so it's being explained.
• Uses are mentioned. I've tried to avoid storage in general since that's really more an issue for the blood bank article.
• Blood collection at high schools in the US are a common event (the rate of donor reactions there is a bit of a concern, though). I'm using the term to include "places that teach stuff."
• Blood grouping and rare blood groups are not mentioned in detail because it's really not that important when sucking the stuff out, it's just important when putting it back in. The issue is: how much goes in this article, and how much goes into blood bank, transfusion, transfusion medicine, etc...?Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Replying to my own comment? Lame. I've addressed many of the concerns given, though not 100% sure if many of them are resolved. I'm leaving for the the land of big belt buckles for a trip which could theoretically leave me out of town for a while (possibly until the 18th) and with limited internet access. If you feel that failing the article is the appropriate thing to do, just leave a list of "further problems" and I'll attempt to address them before resubmitting it. Thanks for all the great comments.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shame you've got to leave. Well done on all the hard work so far anyway. I won't fail anything just yet, because another editor may take up the baton. At the same time, some work is unfortunately still necessary for it to reach GA quality. Have a safe trip. JFW | T@lk 09:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to make a "to do" list, for clarity. A good portion of this I could just write, but finding authoritative sources may take some work and I'm mostly familiar with the US blood industry:

• "Supply and demand" section to cover basics about storage, effects of screening on supply, disasters and shortages.
• Common risks of phlebotomy could use another sentence or two and a supporting cite. The phlebotomy article is not a useful source for sources (it's totally unsourced). Google searches haven't turned up any leads on authoritative sources.
• Testing section should probably be linked to a new article about Transfusion transmitted infection.
• The introduction is probably still too short.
• Post-donation care was previously included in the article, but the section was written in a way that had issues with WP:NOTMANUAL and was axed.
• Did I miss anything?Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The information about Landsteiner and 14 June are not in the main body of the text but appear in the introduction. The introduction should be a summary. I am not sure the Landsteiner's birthday should go in the introduction or not. The middle paragraph of the introduction could be clearer, as its structure is complex and difficult to read. The paragraph starts "This process..."; what process? Snowman (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As might be clear, my internet access is better than expected. Still not sure I like the intro. I've been playing whack-a-{{fact}}. Some of the linked articles (i.e. TTI, phlebotomy) need some substantial work. There was a request on some comments about post-donation care, not sure exactly what was desired since most of that has WP:NOTMANUAL issues. A brief discussion of fractionation and Factor VIII concentrates might be appropriate as well (the intro is the only mention of pharmaceuticals at this point). Any other points for improvement?Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can for this article, and I don't see anything else that can be reasonably included. "Post-donation care" is something I've wrestled with, and I don't see any way to cite it properly without falling into WP:NOTMANUAL. Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, often a "how to" can be avoided by writing in a tutorial style and providing adequate references. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are many points that could be clearer. For example, in the "Site preparation" section: "The site is clearned" - what with?; "A large bore needle" - How large?; "squeeze an object repeatedly to help speed the process." - does not explain the pumping action that is caused by muscle contractions and the veins having valves; in the image caption - "insert the cannula, pull out the cannula" - drawing blood comes between these two processes; prevent damage to the cells - How? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is intentionally vague because of substantial differences in practices around the world. Cites and explanations added for the issues noted in your comments. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, recent work on the section on "Site preparation" shows that much of the vagueness there was due to imprecise text. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are two references to "World blood donor day" - currently ref 19 and 60. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• They're different pages. One is a specific "status update" which directly cites the statistic given in the paragraph. The other is just an explanation of why the day is notable. Somedumbyankee (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, I meant refs 19 and 58. Its the http://www.wbdd.org/index.php?id=24 page. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The rest of the article needs a copy edit. Some comments on the next section, "Whole blood":

"Whole blood is the simplest kind of blood donation" - but whole blood is the type of blood that is drawn, and is it the same process when the blood was subsequently processed into FFP (and so on) in the laboratory; "The blood is stored in a blood bag" - what about refrigeration?; "chemical that prevents blood clotting" - can this be narrowed down; "The plasma from whole blood can be used to make fresh frozen plasma" - is it just frozen or is it more complicated than this, and why - effects on preserving components of blood, and only freshly drawn blood can be used to made FFP; "used to treat wounded soldiers" - Does this imply treatment of acute shock? and how does this compare with the modern use of crystalloids in acute shock? Snowman (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at these, but there's a lot of this that I'm beginning to suspect actually makes the article worse by adding excessive detail on topics that have their own articles, especially things that aren't really related to donation (indications for use on human serum albumin is way beyond the scope of this article). Somedumbyankee (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The revision could be to delete some of the detail; nevertheless, some of the vagueness currently in the article is confusing and in some cases might even give the wrong impression. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, punctuation marks are followed immediately by "<ref" without a space between; corrections needed throughout article. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is the whole article that needs copy editing and not just the two consecutive sections I have concentrated on, by way of examples. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to the introduction:

• "The donor is also examined to make sure that the donation isn't hazardous to their health." was added to the introduction. This seems to imply that the donors medical history and, medication are not taken into consideration.
• The word "pathogens" seems to me to be jargon, and not suitable for the introduction. Snowman (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated changes to the introduction:

• "The donor is also given a short physical examination and asked about medical history to make sure that the donation isn't hazardous to their health." This line appears in the introduction and seems to contain information that is not in the main text. Snowman (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Status as of June 11th, 3 days left

• There is a request for a "copy edit" and I've gone through. I don't see any further grammatical errors, rogue punctuation marks, spelling errors, formatting problems, or anything else obvious.
• The prose could be better, but this will be true even after a hundred visions and revisions.
• I don't see any information in the introduction that isn't covered in the text, though in some cases the introduction doesn't have too much more than the body. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing break

Just by looking at another section, "Blood testing", I found more problems with vague text that have been present in all the other sections I have looked at: "A blood type is often determined by the agency that collects the blood" - which agency; "The tests used are high-sensitivity screening tests and no actual diagnosis is made." - I do not understand this; "including some STDs" - I think the point is lost that these are blood born infectious diseases; "Donated blood is tested by many methods, but the core tests used globally are these four:" - the text goes on to say that only about "56 out of 124 countries" use these tests, so the test seems to be non-global and the article has an internal contradiction. A thorough copy edit of the whole article is needed. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In the "Screening" section: "Donors are typically required to give consent for the process and this requirement means that minors cannot donate without parental consent." What about Gillick competence which is used in many clinical situations through out the world? Snowman (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This could be addressed, but I feel it is WTMI. This UK article explicitly rejects using that standard for blood donation. This is something for the Gillick competence page to discuss. The article cannot cover, and should not portray itself as covering, every possible clinical and legal situation. There are simply too many variations. New Zealand uses the Gillick test, but they appear to be an outlier (at least in the languages I can read), España doesn't allow anyone under 18, Perú has the same requirement, la Argentina requires parental permission, and so on... This is why it says "generally" and doesn't delude the reader into thinking the article covers every possible situation. As for the testing, in the countries other than the 56, they sometimes do no testing whatsoever, though they would probably use at least those tests if they could. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of the vagueness still in the article is confusing and in some cases might even give the wrong impression. The article may need a peer review or become the topic for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week (if selected), and try at GAR on another occasion. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had access problems (home computer broken) but I am aware of Snowmanradio's involvement and am afraid that on review I agree that there are ongoing problems that are presently stopping it from qualifying as a GA. Nevertheless, my compliments for the work and I'm sure it will achieve GAC with a bit of further work. JFW | T@lk 13:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by WhatamIdoing

Snowman, while I appreciate your expertise on this issue, I'm a little concerned about some of your comments. For example, you quote "blood type is often determined by the agency that collects the blood" and ask "which agency". The answer to your question is contained in the quoted material: "by the agency that collects the blood." Can you explain how to interpret this restrictive clause in a way that does not communicate that the agency that collects the blood is the agency that often determines the blood type? (I can't.)

But is does not say describe what sort of an agency it is, and I think that the language is not clear. Blood groups are usually done in blood banks or a laboratory, and an organization that collects blood may be a blood transfusion service (in the UK). Of course, a blood bank could be part of a blood transfusion service. I think that the line could be clearer, and I was aiming for more clarity in the article. To me, the line that you quoted as an example is obviously vague and inadequate, and I feel that it was entirely appropriate to say that it had a problem. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that a list of the kinds of agencies that might do this testing actually makes this sentence any clearer. It might make the article more complete, and it would certainly make it more verbose, but there is no confusion here. The reader is not left wondering whether the testing is often (but not always) done by the agency that collected the blood, or by some other unnamed agency. The reader already knows: it is normally done by the agency that collected the blood. The absence of concrete detail may not fully enlighten the reader, but it does not confuse him, either.

Importantly, the general statement is applicable globally, in "ideal" situations as well as in shockingly inadequate ones. Our statement holds true whether the agency is the national Red Cross, the U.S. Marines, the blood services department of a major hospital, or volunteers who self-organize after a major disaster. The general rule, as stated, holds true in all these situations. A sentence that says "blood typing is often done by blood banks" (for example) would not be true round the globe, and is certainly not going to be true in some emergencies. I would be sorry to see this article remove accurate general statements in favor of specfic details that primarily refer to non-disaster situations in wealthy countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not even saying that the line should be modified. Of course, the line is correct as a generalisation. I have not suggested that the line should be changed to "blood typing is often done by blood banks". I think that the line as it stands is unclear, and there are several ways to improve it or the section. The line may be modified or supporting information may be added. I think that I am entirely correct in pointing this out, since the article does not say much about what agencies are involved anywhere else. Snowman (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that some of your comments tend to increase the scope of the article inappropriately. Just to name one example, storage issues are probably best handled in another article, because they don't really affect the donation at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear in the discussion for the GA attempt that some of the modifications could be to remove detail. I was mealy pointing out a problem with the page and not how to fix it. Perhaps, in some areas detail could have been removed. I think that "Blood donation" can not be understood fully without a brief mention of storage and the storage life of blood. An article should be complete without missing out any major aspects of the topic - that is a requirement of a GA. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that you comments are better late than never. I made it clear that I am not an expert in the topic. User:Jfdwolff kindly closed the page and was in agreement that the page had problems. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

After GA attempt status

I'll be away for a few days as well, probably a good thing since I'm becoming somewhat irritated about things. Getting annoyed at the internet just ain't worth it, so a little time off will be good. Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tha whole article needs thorough copy editing. The "Five Cs" summarize the copy editor's job: make the copy (i) clear, (ii) correct, (iii) concise, (iv) comprehensible, and (v) consistent. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? "I don't like it" is about all I can see in the comments. I'm not going to list the practices of every blood bank on the planet on the basis of being concise. Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"The blood can also be transfused directly into the recipient." - the reference for this line is about historical methods, so this line is misleading as it could suggest that it is a common current option. Also, I think that a manual pumping device was used in the pipeline, and so the word "directly" in the line may to misunderstood to indicate that is is self powered process. I have shown that two sections are littered with errors of emphasis and vagueness in the GA attempt process. I guess that you may be too close to the work yourself to copy edit the article (as you have indicated in your request of a peer review), and it is sometimes better for people who are new to the article to copy edit. I think that the peer review editors will be able to make some suggestions, but I think that only experts can deal with the nitty gritty of the article. I should add that I think that I am being objective with absolutely no element of "I do not like it". Snowman (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase you're mentioning makes no indication that it is common (it's listed as an "also" because it's not an equivalent process), but it is a valid way of performing a transfusion and it should be mentioned since it's combined with the donation process. I need to do more research on this, because the WHO requiring a test for syphilis (which cannot be transmitted in stored blood because the spirochetes don't survive at refrigerated temperatures) implies that people are still doing it in developing countries. It's a historical footnote for the developed world, but that doesn't mean that it's a dead practice worldwide. When the article is vague, it's usually vague because transfusion medicine practices in the developing world aren't widely available on the internet and I would rather have the article be inconclusive than overly specific. "First, do no harm" as it were. Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the phrase that I was referring to is dated 1989 (this date needs to be added to the cite) and is about transfusion in WWII and the Korean war. You are correct in saying that there is no indication on how common it is, but perhaps it should inform the reader of this fact as it is in current practice. If direct blood transfusion needs to be included (from veins or arteries) perhaps these are sufficiently different to need a separate section. I fear that writing vaguely for everyone and include historical footnotes in the same section might confuse everyone. It might be best to be explicit and explain the use of the various methods. I think the article needs more work, but please do not be disheartened, I think that you have done a good job almost single handed, and sometimes it takes a team of editors weeks or months to get an article to GA. Quite a lot of work is needed to format the references. I may not comment here for a week or two and during this time perhaps other people may offer their assistance or opinions. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a lead on an article, but I'm at home and can't get access to pubmed stuff. I'll get it on Monday, hopefully. It's really more of an issue for the transfusion article, and it is covered there, though that article needs some work as well. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct transfusions

To a certain extent, I just wanted to cover that these could be done, but it appears that this is creeping into a major new activity for the article (it seems more an issue for transfusion). One issue that was just added. Clotting factors shouldn't be a problem for direct transfusion, the main advantages would be that it's oxygenated if arterial (the alternative for stored blood is ECMO), and the 2,3-DPG levels are optimal (2,3-DPG levels are one of the main problems with current storage methods). Clotting factor preservation shouldn't be a big deal. Unless this can be cited, I don't see a reason to keep this statement. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"This process [direct transfusion] is no longer routinely done in the developed world" has a fact-tag. Can anyone possibly explain why this is necessary? The GAC rule is to source "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" -- and it doesn't seem to fit any of these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe more of a "needs expansion" tag, since I have a specific thing to follow up on (need resources @ work to do it) as to whether it's totally historical and/or desperate (as opposed to a practice that continues in the developing world because it requires less supplies/etc). A lot of the things that are cited here probably don't need them, but I figure that as long as I have the sources, the more the merrier. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Calorie thing

This was removed from the article, see the previous discussion above. If it were to be included, it would have to be cited (the cites are listed above). Considering it's not an effective way to lose weight, it's not a benefit in the usual sense. The number is something that is of possible interest, and I guess I could see including it as a "fact about donations" in the section with hemoglobin replenishment, etc...

There is no "lighter side" to the document: it's an encyclopedia article. It needn't be boring, but it should stay pretty dry. SDY (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought blood was pretty wet. And "lighter side" was a play on the body weight topic. I added the note about calories in blood because this question pops up here and there on the internet (and not just on the vampire sites). People mistakenly think that since a pint is a pound, they are donating a pound's worth of calories, i.e. 3500 kcal. And thus think they are either losing real weight (the anorexics) or use it as an excuse for a beer and food bash (the frat boys). Unfortunately, there is no citation. Doing the calorie math for the components of blood yields 400 to 500 calories. Plasma protein, lipid and glucose are 100 of that, hemoglobin in RBCs 300, the rest is for the unknown amount of calories from non-hemoglobin protein and membrane lipids of the RBCs. For some reason the Mayo Clinic FAQ on blood donations says 650 kcal, but they don't reference it or show the math. If you are willing to consider putting it back, I like "On the lighter side, does donating blood equate to losing weight? The answer is "Not really." While a pint weighs a pound, there are fewer than 500 calories in a pint of blood, or about the same as in a small meal." David_notMD --Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk o contribs) 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What you're describing, David notMD, is something called Original Research - you're synthesizing something for the article from other facts you know. That's really not considered ok for Wikipedia articles - if you had a source saying that a pint of blood was 500 calories, then that would be one thing, but doing some math yourself and saying that 500 calories is a fact isn't really what we do here. So if you want to add and cite the Mayo Clinic number, then we can talk, but just adding 500, especially in light of a conflicting reliable source (Mayo), isn't going to fly. In addition, encyclopedias don't do plays on words - it's rather unprofessional, for lack of a better term for it. We write fact, not humor. And finally, Wikipedia is not a FAQ - we don't use a question and answer format like you're suggesting. I agree with SDY that if the (cited) calorie count goes into the article, it belongs in the facts section as a one-line note. ke??t?k fl?fi (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Option then is something more like this "According to the Mayo Clinic FAQ on blood donations, a pint of blood is the equivalent of 650 calories." If a link is needed to Mayo Clinic's FAQ, here it is: http://www.mayoclinic.org/donate-blood-rst/know.html David_notMD --Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk o contribs) 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to David, the info is not irrelevant to an encyclopedia, in the sense that when some users click the TOC at "#Benefits and incentives", they are looking to jump down and find out whether it is true that weight loss is a benefit of blood donation (answer = no). It's worth communicating that information to them in some way, even if it does not involve humor and does involve references. So I just wanted to say that "you're both right." Quercus solaris (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When it doesn't work, it's not much of a benefit or incentive. I agree that this is information that is commonly "requested" in the article. Partially it's a question of "customer service" in putting it in a place where people who aren't going to read the article will find it, and partially it's a question of writing it into a place where it flows reasonably for someone who is reading the whole article. SDY (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Still of the opinion that knowing a possible incentive or benefit is false is useful information. But I'll leave it to SDY to put it in or not. David_notMD --Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk o contribs) 18:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Charlotte is a nice person and she gves blood --Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.103.6 (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blood shortages --are people dying due to lack of donations?

I'm having trouble finding any sources relating to the number of deaths related to a shortage of blood donations. Are people dying due to lack of blood supplies? According to this source], I am lead to believe that no one in the USA dies from a lack of blood donations. Is there any information about other nations (particularly developing nations)? I think a discussion about the adequacy of current blood supplies is very relevant to this article. I am particularly interested because of the MSM_blood_donor_controversy. I am looking to see if an arguement can be made that the risk of people dying due to blood shortages outweighs the increased risk of passing on diseases. According to the [FDA website] the risk does not, at least as far as the USA is concerned. What about other countries? Any insight on this issue is appreciated. --Tea with toast (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of donation isn't usually the problem in the developing world, it's lack of logistics: having the blood is only the first step in a fairly complicated and possibly dangerous process. I don't have a whole lot of info about specifics, but you could try searching around here, the DHHS advisory committee that exists to address the safety/availability balance. They should have meeting minutes in there somewhere, and I'm guessing the question has come up. SDY (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Titmuss

While I can verify that Titmuss did in fact exist and made some assertions about altruism and blood donation, I'm concerned that the proposed addition to the article overstates his importance. At the very least, I'd like to see some verification on what he "established." Altruism (or benevolence, as argued by a 2005 article in J Med Ethics), has always been a common motivator for blood donation.

I'm a little concerned that I've never heard of this guy, and I've been working with blood banks for eight years now. He had an opinion, certainly, but our article on him suggests that he was well-intentioned but not particularly influential. That the GAO report discussing payment of donors never mentions his name is a little troubling if he is truly that influential.

He's no Landsteiner. SDY (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least I'd like to see some sources, because I'm not finding much with "the Google." It's possible that he's a local British phenomenon, and from what I'm reading a very generational (post-war) phenomenon. I'll admit that my bias is very much towards a technical and legal approach to the topic rather than the philosophy and history. I'm curious about the text of World Health Assembly resolution 28.72 of 1975, which is much closer to the time of Titmuss, but it's not available online so far as I can find. That the WHO's page on voluntary blood donation policy doesn't mention him is also troubling. SDY (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised if WHO's page on voluntary blood donation policy does not mention Titmuss, since his importance is not in blood donation policy but in the wider human sciences, and the reason for citing his work here is to give blood donation the credit it deserves for enabling him to argue convincingly that altruism is a real phenomenon, despite the efforts of many philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists and politicians to claim the contrary.

I am however surprised that SDY is unaware of him. Perhaps the patronising observation about him being a "local British phenomenon" may suggest why; certainly the remark that Titmuss was "a very generational (post-war) phenomenon" implies that this article has no business dealing with the history of blood donation and its influences on the social sciences - an implication with which I disagree.

Titmuss' work on blood donation was for long seen as a ''locus classicus'' on altruism, and he has had a substantial influence on anthropology. I do not have leisure at present to consult a range of published references, but it's clear that his work The Gift Relationship : From Human Blood to Social Policy (1970) was greatly influential in its day, and has recently been republished because of its renewed relevance in contemporary debates about organ donation.

In that context I think that SDY's deletion of my contribution on Titmuss was cavalier, and I am disappointed that after inviting me to talk he failed to engage with what I said before simply deleting it again. I invite him to consider that there is room for more than one vision of what this article should contain.

I have a lot less concern about what was just added to the article, since it isn't quite as gushingly enthusiastic and is actually sourced. Just saying "this guy is super-important" when he is far from a household name, even in the blood banking community, is likely to be challenged. Honestly, the reason cited in a recent ABC newsletter discussing the allowable incentives for blood donors (i.e. what "gifts for gifts" are not considered payment) explicitly leaves it on the door of addicts that wanted money for drugs, one of the painfully obvious high risk populations which should not donate blood (for the rest of their lives by current US standards). The bottom line reason why paid donors are currently considered dubious is as simple as "Does the donor have an incentive to lie about risky behaviors on health screening?" Titmuss appears to be part of history rather than a major modern influence, and he's definitely worth mentioning on that aspect, but claiming that he's overwhelmingly important now does not seem to be justified from what I can find and from what I have experienced. SDY (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Recovery and time between donations

Just found a minor mistake / misleading in information in " Recovery and time between donations " section.

the recovery time for donor from HK is 3 months for male and 4 months for female. 6 months are only for the teenage who under 18 but above 16. the old statement wasn't completely incorrect but i feel that it is a bit of misleading and people from HK might think they should go and donate every 6 months. Iamjackhk (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in issues of recovery time, and tried to follow links [62] and [63], but couldn't. Link [62] is a dead end, and link [63] takes one to a secure login site (and it's hard to get off that site also!). Volleyhigher (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)volleyhigher

Female partners of men who have sex with men blood ban map

I was thinking about adding this map but I noticed there was no mention of blood donor deferrals for the female sex partners of MSM. Would it be okay if we add this map (and possibly mention blood donor deferrals for female sex partners of MSM)?

--Prcc27 (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved from main article

Someone removed the {{citation needed}} tags on the following statement:

There was no source and the topic isn't discussed further in the article body, so I've moved it here until a source is available. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"650 Calories" claim

Here's what I (with help from others) have been able to dig up regarding sourcing of the claim that donating blood uses "650 calories" (or 600, sometimes).

The Mayo Clinic page mentioned above: http://www.mayoclinic.org/donateblood/know.html was changed into a redirect sometime between Oct 10, 2008 and Feb 26, 2009 (per the Wayback Machine). The earliest archived version of the redirected page (Dec 19, 2008) includes the claim: "You burn about 650 calories by donating one pint of blood." However, it was removed sometime between Feb 26, 2009 and Sep 1, 2009, and does not appear in the current page: https://web.archive.org/web/20150323100120/http://www.mayoclinic.org/donateblood/know.html .

The claim has sometimes been cited to the whole of the University of California, San Diego. The earliest instance of this I've been able to find appears in this story in the Daily Mail on May 31, 2013: Donating blood is as good for YOUR health as it is for the receiver which says: "The University of California in San Diego estimate that for every one pint of blood donated, 650 calories are burned as the body must replenish itself." This was also claimed (around the same time), here. Also around the same time, ( web.archive.org/web/20130627223406/www.opposingviews.com/i/health/new-evidence-suggests-donating-blood-has-health-benefits-donor (on WP blacklist)) repeated the claim, linking to a CNN article from 2000, which, sadly, doesn't mention anything about calories. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

JesseW Hmm, sounds like potentially one for Snopes then! JFW | T@lk 10:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit of detail on the calorie math in the Invigoration/Benefits section of Talk.David notMD (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Calories was deleted as a donor benefit and I have refrained from reposting. There are two ways to think about the question: A) calorie content of the donated blood, which is closer to 500 than the sometimes mentioned 650, and B) the energy cost of synthesizing the replacement cells and plasma components - which has never been measured and would be extremely difficult to measure, given as plasma gets replaced within two days, but red blood cell replacement takes up to 60 days. So, no answer to the question of calories per donation, except clearly not a pound's worth of calories even though the 500 mL donation weighs roughly a pound.David notMD (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blood donation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090830053230/http://www.rckik-warszawa.com.pl:80/dlakrwio_ds.html to http://www.rckik-warszawa.com.pl/dlakrwio_ds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blood donation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007071259/http://www.aabb.org/Documents/About_Blood/Circulars_of_Information/coi0702.pdf to http://www.aabb.org/Documents/About_Blood/Circulars_of_Information/coi0702.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203095445/http://www.cps.ca:80/english/statements/FN/fn02-02.htm to http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn02-02.htm#What%20type%20of%20RBCs%20should%20be%20used

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Blood donors' perceptions, motivators and deterrents in Sub-Saharan Africa - a scoping review of evidence. doi:10.1111/bjh.14588 JFW | T@lk 12:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia