top of page
Search

Directed blood donation: Addressing risk

jearungby
6 days ago6 min read

Kindly republished from http://impactreconciliation.care/ Sierra Hamm (Kentucky, US) is an entrepreneur and freelance medical writer adressing maternal and neonatal health issues and courses. Author. Grassroots activist leading the way to a clean blood supply. More.



In recent years, the conversation around blood safety and transparency has gained momentum. As medical advancements introduce new technologies, including mRNA-based therapies, a growing number of patients and healthcare advocates are calling for greater transparency in the blood donation system.


Summary:

1. Directed blood donation has been practiced in the U.S. for over 30 years, originating in response to HIV and Hepatitis C contamination in the blood supply.

2. It is highly safe, as all donors—whether public or private—undergo the same risk assessments and screenings.

3. While directed donors test positive for diseases at a higher rate, no evidence suggests this affects recipients, as all transfused blood is screened to be disease-free. Directed donors benefit from early detection of conditions they might not have known about for years.

4. Studies show that directed donation is safer for premature infants.

5. Directed donation provides recipients with greater psychological well-being and peace of mind.

6. An invitation to donate blood to a loved one turns many people into first-time donors, expanding the blood supply.

7. Graft versus host disease risk can be drastically reduced with informed consent and patient education to avoid familial donors

8. Multidimensional health includes more than the physical body, but conscience and spirit too

 

Introduction:

 When it comes to blood donations, the primary concern is always safety—ensuring that the blood supply is free from disease, contamination, and potential harm. There has been considerable debate about directed blood donations (where individuals donate specifically for a friend or family member), and some have raised concerns about potential risks, even suggesting that the practice should be avoided due to perceived safety issues. However, when we take a closer look at the evidence, it becomes clear that directed blood donations offer a host of benefits, with risks that are either negligible or theoretical.

Screening and Safety: Equal Treatment for All Donations

First, let’s address a key concern: the screening of blood. While some believe that directed blood donations are less safe than regular donations, this simply isn’t the case. According to the American Red Cross, all blood donations—whether directed, autologous (self-donated), or regular—undergo the same rigorous screening process for diseases such as HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious agents. The blood is tested to the highest standards, and there is no indication that directed donations receive any less scrutiny.

 

Theoretical Risks vs. Tangible Benefits

 

The blood establishment wants us to believe that direct donors are more dangerous because they may feel a pressure to lie on the risk assessment form. This is a theoretical risk, that could also be present at office blood drives. Someone may feel embarrassed if they are not able to donate blood with his or her coworkers and decide to lie on a risk questionnaire. Blood donors are told they must give truthful answers by law. If someone answers the risk assessment untruthfully, the screening of the blood is a secondary safety measure to protect the integrity of blood transfusions.

Moreover, an article in Transfusion (Strauss, Barnes, Blanchette, 1990) points out that using a single directed donor for multiple donations to a neonate (for instance) can actually reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted diseases when compared to using blood from multiple donors. The principle here is simple: the more familiar the blood source, the lower the risk of introducing a pathogen from an unknown or new donor. This is particularly crucial for sensitive patients, like infants, who may need small but frequent blood transfusions. Therefore, directed blood donations can be a safer option in specific contexts.

Another article that was published incorrectly reported on the findings of Dorsey, et al.This study was done on 40 million blood donations by the American Red Cross.The research did not evaluate transmission of virus, rather positive screenings for communicable disease markers. The only disease that was elevated in the direct donor group was Hepatitis C. This means that because of that individual being asked to donate blood to a loved one, they were then screened and found to have Hepatitis C, which would have gone undiagnosed for perhaps many years. This is an invaluable health screening service that further serves American communities, and should be promoted and protected, not prohibited.

Simply because a unit of donated blood screens positively for a disease, does not equate to transmission of that blood, because it is discarded! The transmission of hepatitis, HIV, and the 5 other communicable diseases mandated for screening by the FDA is less than 1 in a million chance in the blood supply as a whole.

 Psychological Well-Being: A Motivating Force for Donation

While the science of blood safety is clear, another major benefit of directed donation is the psychological sense of well-being it offers to both the donor and the recipient. Many people feel a deep sense of comfort knowing that they are helping a loved one directly, and this often serves as a motivating factor for first-time blood donors. The Red Cross reports that directed donation programs have successfully brought many new individuals into the blood donation system, who, without this personal connection, might not have considered donating (Zeger, et. al., 2007).

Furthermore, for the recipient, receiving blood from someone they know can offer psychological reassurance. While there may be little tangible difference in terms of blood safety between directed and regular donations, the emotional comfort that comes from knowing the donor adds a layer of peace of mind that many find invaluable in stressful medical situations.

Health is the unity of mind, body, and spirit. If one of these is violated, then there can be no health. We are not merely flesh and blood, and as Americans, we have the freedom to act on more than physical reality, but on our conscience and religious convictions as well. We have a fundamental right to choose whose blood we receive into our bodies.

Now, let’s briefly touch on the theoretical risk some believe exists with directed blood donations. The FDA has stated that directed blood donations are “not medically indicated,” due to concerns that they could be less safe than standard donations. However, the scientific literature paints a different picture. A study published in Blood Transfusion (2019) demonstrated that directed blood donations are as safe as those from first-time donors, with no significant increase in the risk of adverse reactions.

The argument for avoiding directed blood donations based on theoretical risks simply does not hold up when weighed against the tangible benefits.

Valid Medical Concerns

There are valid medical considerations, such as graft-versus-host disease, particularly among first-degree relatives. This is when the blood transfusion causes a severe reaction in the host. However, this risk can be mitigated through proper counseling and education—something I do regularly for people seeking directed blood donation, including both covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. When people realize the risks, they are more likely to choose nonfamilial donors, but not always. This is because people have different value systems and evaluate risk uniquely. There is also the option to irradiate the blood prior to reception, which is shown to reduce the risk of GVHD.

Moving Toward an Informed and Compassionate Approach

When it comes to the safety of the blood supply, the evidence is clear: directed blood donations are just as safe as other types of blood donations. They offer a number of unique benefits, including a higher degree of psychological well-being for both the donor and recipient and the potential for reduced risk in certain high-risk groups. The idea that directed blood donation poses a significant risk is unfounded, and the practice is both an ethical and effective way to help loved ones in need.

In conclusion, as we navigate the complexities of blood safety, it is important to consider both the science and the human element. Directed blood donations allow us to connect with our loved ones in a meaningful way, ensuring that we can help them in their time of need while still safeguarding their health. So, the next time you consider how to give blood, remember that directed blood donation can be a safe, compassionate, and effective option for all involved.

 

 

 

References:

 
 
 

Opmerkingen

bottom of page