Posted on 05/25/2010 9:38:19 AM PDT by Nachum
Public health officials are battling a host of new infectious threats to the nation's blood supply.
Blood centers, which have long tested for risks like hepatitis C and AIDS, have added a number of new tests on donated blood in recent years, including checks for West Nile virus and Chagas, a tropical parasitic disease.
But new screening tests are hard to develop and can take years to win government approval. Currently, for instance, there's no way to screen for newer threats like babesiosis, a parasitic infection that has been linked to 10 U.S. deaths through blood transfusions since 2006. And a dangerous virus known as Chikungunya has spread to the U.S. and Europe from Africa in the last several years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Problem has gotten out of hand with the rise of the AIDS promoting community of male homosexuals. Public Health officials have been banned from doing tracebacks and contacting partners of AIDS vectors (male homos)—this check on public health was veiled as a civil rights issue for the deviants at the expense of public health sometime in the 1980s. We started with one case of HIV and now have several million. What a great country when politicians are allowed to set public health policy by the influence of sexual deviants.
I used to have a pin that said I gave something in gallons. I think it was five gallons. Sounds like a lot, but I used to give blood a lot.
I haven’t given blood in over 15 years though. It is because of what happened the last time I did. We were doing it because an acquaintance needed blood for surgery and it suddenly hit me that the surgery was costing BIG bucks for everything INCLUDING blood. So why should the source of the blood be doing it for free? It just rubbed me the wrong way. My reasoning is much more complicated than that, but that’s the “one sentence” version.
So I opted out of the system. I don’t give blood anymore unless I get half whatever the hospital charges for it.
I believe that one of the reasons we use volunteer blood in the U.S. is to discourage those who shouldn’t be giving blood from doing just for the money. With volunteers there would be less motivation to lie just to get money.
By the way, I had to be given 2 units of blood 2 months ago after have both knee joints replaced.
Yeah, that makes sense. I just really hate a highly profitable business asking the “masses” to DONATE their life’s blood, and then the patient get’s charged dearly for it.
You can set aside blood for yourself too.
We actually buy blood too; every inner city area has a clinic that buys plasma. We should probably rethink that.
Don't get me started on what all of that should cost because that's a completely different argument.
***I used to have a pin that said I gave something in gallons. I think it was five gallons. Sounds like a lot, but I used to give blood a lot.***
I’ve given that much to my barb wire fence over the years! I’m on blood thinners. See me bleed!
>>Folks, the blood is “free”. It’s the cost of the facilities and personnel to draw it, store it, deliver it and document it for which the patient gets billed.<<
Yes. It is because all the people that do it are paid, and the people that create and sell the equipment are paid.
Handsomely.
But the actual source of the blood is a volunteer. It’s a weird paradigm and I choose not to play.
>>You can set aside blood for yourself too.<<
I’ll have to pay for it no matter how I get it.
Yes, clinics buy plasma but am I correct that the infection issues are different than with whole blood?
How are you assured your blood is kept just for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.