Re: NHS tainted blood scandal

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Tue, 21 May 2024 09:01:16 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

All hail socialized medicine. This is so much worse than the
subpostmaster scandal.

Did you watch Mr Bates vs The Post Office when it aired on PBS last
month? Just curious....

I discussed it on Usenet when I did.

. . .

. . .

We had a tainted blood scandal of our own and it was bad enough that
the Red Cross got out of blood collection entirely; now the new
Canadian Blood Services Agency does blood collection.

There was plenty of tainted blood in the United States too.

After the original scandal died down, the blood supply has not been
heavily discussed but every once in a while, I see articles to the
effect that more of the restrictions against certain blood donors have
been lifted. I haven't followed the details closely but homosexuals
*are* apparently able to give blood now.

We never had a restriction on other than gay men as I recall, but they
made no distinction between those with risky sex habits and those
without. Not sure there was ever an issue with lesbians as communicable
disease spread is far more difficult.

I'm not clear if their blood
is actually tested for HIV/AIDS though or if they just have to give a
pinky swear that they are not overly promiscuous and don't share IV
needles.

If the blood from individual donors is tested BEFORE being commingled
and batched, I don't see why a restriction is necessary.

I really need to find out about that because one fine day I
could well end up needing a blood transfusion and I *really* don't
want to get HIV/AIDS!! I know it is not the death sentence it was
initially but I gather the treatment is not particularly pleasant and
goes on for the rest of your life so I really want to avoid all that.

If it's elective surgery with enough lead time, then make arrangements
to store your own blood.