So, I'm reading a book called Stiff, by Mary Roach. Essentially, it's a book all about dead people. Cadavers, to be specific. It goes into detail about what sorts of things cadavers have (and have not) done in the name of science. Yeah, it isn't just anatomy lab that they're used in. They've been used for automotive crash dummies, to study the progression of decay, for medicine (literally), for wacky religious experiments (trying to prove that the Shroud of Turin is real), and for organ donation (these are called beating-heart cadavers).
But the part I'm reading through now is about blood donations. Now, I work in a hospital laboratory. We have to draw blood to give blood (and other blood products). I know how insanely strict blood banks are about their blood. I mean, I have to redraw patients every 72 hours for blood products (unless it's something sans antibodies, like Fresh/Frozen plasma). If I misspell the patient's name on the band (which are handwritten), I have to go back up and change it. I have to make sure the time on my band matches the band on the paper. I have to identify the patient, even when their wristband already identifies them. It's a long, drawn out process that makes blood bank draws much more time consuming than normal draws. So, blood banks are pretty particular about who gets what blood.
You've all probably heard of the benefits of blood donations in the past... for every pint of blood you give, you can help up to three people. There are dozens of people that need blood every day. Of course, O negative is the most desired type of blood, because it can be given to anyone (and is thus used a great deal in trauma situations where the type of blood is not known).
But, how would you feel getting blood from a dead person? Someone figured out that for some six hours post-death, the blood inside the body is still sterile and still has the ability to carry oxygen. The only problem with the blood collection is that it can't be taken out of the arm with a vacuum, because the body has no blood pressure and this would cause the vein to collapse (I've heard plenty of stories of trying to draw blood from a dead body... one of my coworkers actually managed it). So, the jugular vein (the one in your neck) is used, and the body is tilted with the head down to allow gravity to pull the blood towards the collection device.
The advantage of doing this, of course, is that the body holds like 6 pints of blood. If the body isn't using the blood anymore (since it's dead), this blood could save up to 18 people. With no side effects that living people experience with blood donation. And, of course, if you undergo the typical embalming process for a funeral, the blood is drained anyway, and then just poured down the drain.
Obviously, the same controls in place for living blood donations would be put in place, so the blood would be screened for diseases and whatnot prior to transfusion, so that wouldn't be an issue. But how would you feel if you knew that the blood you were receiving was from a dead person (that is, someone dead at the time of donation, not necessarily someone who died post-donation)?
Only three people, according to Roach, have been transfused in the US this way, courtesy of Jack Kevorkian. Yes, that would be the same Kevorkian that euthanizes patients. All other transfusions of this nature have taken place in the former USSR. Take that for what it's worth.
Is it ethical to take a dead person's blood? Well, if they choose to donate it in such a way, there is no problem, technically. The family may have issues with it (as they would if they knew some of the things that happen to cadavers donated to science), but there would be no legal issue. But would it be ethical to give it to a living person without telling them it's from a cadaver? It's virtually the same blood that would come from a living donor, so beyond the 'ick' factor, I don't think there would be an ethical issue with it. After all, at least it's human blood that's being transfused .
What's your opinion on the issue?
I'm in the bandwagon that if the person was an organ donor or gave consent, then it is ethical to use it for transfusions. It seems to me like a no-brainer, too, and would solve a good portion of the blood donation issue. (Of course, I'm of the mindset that I no longer need my body after I die, so I might as well arrange so that others can make use of it.)
As for the recipient, I guess it would be ethical to give the person the choice of getting blood from someone who was dead or still alive at the time of collection, but personally, I wouldn't care as long as it was sterile and disease-free. In my opinion, getting blood from a donor that has died is no different from getting, say, a heart, or other organ that can only be harvested from cadavers.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
As long as the family gave consent, and the person was designated as an organ donor or gave consent and it is safe. From the perspective of the person receiving the blood, I wouldn't mind, exactly, but I'm not sure that I would want to know. But then again, It is more logical to tell the person.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I view this as the same as an organ donor, if you choose to donate an organ why not donate your blood as well? It seems like a waste if the person is blood is usable when they die to not use it just because of the fact that it came from a dead person.
I have been the recipient of the donation of cadaver tissue which was used to reconstruct the destroyed cartilage in my knee. The donor gave his consent when he was alive. I was informed and given a choice on whether to use the donated tissue, or an artificial substitute. This seems like the same thing to me. A person's blood should be treated like any other organ.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
There are a lot of tricky areas in medical ethics. Often it seems like the technology out-runs the ethical discussion that should govern the use of the technology.
But in this case, I think the ethics are settled. We should follow the established precedent.
Your article overall was very informative!
------------------------------------------------
It always seems impossible until it is done-Nelson Mandela.
I say "Why not?" It seems like a no brainer to me if there's enough usable blood for up to 18 people, is usually thrown away anyway, and if the person or surviving family consents.
Now as to the patient receiving the blood: They should probably know. Because of that "ick" factor. That's the only reason you'd need to tell them, because maybe they'll not feel it's right morally or something.
And now, a random question: I know you can get a blood test at the hospital to see what type of blood you have, but does it cost anything? Just curious. I have no idea what blood type I have.
You have to have a doctor's order to get blood drawn at the hospital, and your doctor has to have a diagnosis code to justify ordering the test. If he/she does, though, you can go to Lapcorp or whatever lab covers your insurance and get it done and your insurance will pay for it. Couldn't hurt to ask at your next doctor's appointment.
Or you can buy one of those cheap kits that just requires a few drops of blood. They're pretty accurate, and if you need blood, they'll type it anyway before they give you anything (or will give you O neg until they do).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Ok just curious. Thought I'd ask someone who'd know for sure. :)
I also heard that people who've been over seas, like to England and such, can't donate blood. That's still true right? Or is there a time limit on these things? I went to England in 2007 and was told I couldn't donate.
I lived in Germany during the late 80's, and I'm still eligible to donate blood. I know if you've been to Africa or something, you're not allowed to donate for like a year following your return, and you're excluded from donating if you were in certain countries at certain times. You're also excluded from donating if you've had a piercing in the past 12 months, or if you have more than like 5 total piercings, so there is a lot more than can exclude you. Just go to your next blood drive... they'll have a nice long questionnaire for you to fill out to determine your eligibility.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Just go to your next blood drive... they'll have a nice long questionnaire for you to fill out to determine your eligibility.
Second that. Also, if you go to a Red Cross blood drive (I don't know of any others, but, yeah), they'll type your blood and when they send you your donor card (which bypasses some of the registration process in future donations), it has your blood type on it (which I think would come in handy if I'm ever in a position where I can't tell them). And your only payment is donating the blood. ;)
As far as the restrictions go, as far as I know (it's been a while since I've given blood, so I might be a little off on my numbers), you can't give blood for between one and five years (depending on the country), if you were in a European or African country for at least six months.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge