Talk:Blood donation

message: "A large[51] needle (16 to 17 gauge) is used to minimize shearing forces that may physically damage red blood cells as they flow through the needle.[52] "
This is commonly believed by phlebotomist, but not empirically supported. Many people call it an old wives tale. Smaller gauge needles do not increase hemolysis except when vacuum containers are used and they are only used in blood donation to draw samples for testing. Large bore needles are used because they have higher flow rates and allow the donation to be completed in less time, and the higher flow rate also prevents clotting. I just need better sources to fully support this. 
SSyntaxin (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction to "obtaining the blood"

message: 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 • 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Complications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lightheadedness

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The same process is used by Héma-Québec. -- Hugo Dufort 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use/discard bar codes?

message: 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)
thread_title:  fainting 

message: 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 • ~ 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the comment. I agree. - Introvert • ~ 08:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link as resource? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Donations vs. Selling

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you--Meissmart 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloodmobile 

message: 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)
replies: text: GA failed, no response to concerns. Rlevse 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: In Quebec (where I live), we have to wait at least 56 days between two donations . 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)
replies: text: 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 • ~ 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Frequency 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What is heavy lifting? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Donor Card

message: :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  shows the same setup and here  we have the blood samples again. Guidod 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is picture misleading? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Double red" and ALYX 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restrictions on Who can Donate 

message: 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 • contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Baby blood donation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Also see comments under toxins.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits: uncited "invigoration" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too Long 

message: 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 • contribs) 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: Remove globalize tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  After GA attempt status 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Direct transfusions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 • contribs) 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 • contribs) 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Calorie thing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Blood shortages --are people dying due to lack of donations?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recovery and time between donations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Female partners of men who have sex with men blood ban map 

message: Someone removed the  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)
thread_title:  Moved from main article 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "650 Calories" claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blood donation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sub-Saharan Africa 

message: Summary:
The start of the article starts with a basic definition of blood donation: "A blood donation occurs when a person voluntarily has blood drawn and used for transfusions and/or made into biopharmaceutical medications by a process called fractionation (separation of whole-blood components)". The introduction continues to briefly explain important aspects such as types of donors, evaluations of donors, and collections. Most of the information in the introduction is short and only discusses the major aspect of blood donation, lacking a lot of information which is explained more in-depth later in the article. An interesting factor of the introduction section is the redirection to other Wikipedia articles that have little to do with the subject but share similar names:
"Give blood" redirects here. For other uses, see Give blood (disambiguation).
Blood donor" redirects here. For the TV episode, see The Blood Donor.
I like how the creators of the article valued efficiency for the readers when making the article. Overall, the introduction is a short, brief, but informative section regarding the topic of blood donation.
The rest of the articles in mainly divided into 8 different contents "Types of donation", "Screening", "Obtaining the blood", "Recovery and time between donations", "Complications", "Storage, supply and demand", "Donor health benefits", and "Donor compensation". Some sections such as "Complications" and "Storage, supply and demand" have an extensive and in-depth analysis regarding the content and the subject. However, "Donor health benefits"'s, and "Donor compensation"'s have a small section that can be expanded on by just my personal knowledge alone. These are the sections that I plan on improving. Contents such as "Screening", "Obtaining the blood" (which I think should have a better title), and "Storage, supply and demand" have subheadings that explain the contents further but I feel that some other contents could benefit from subheading too (again, "Donor health benefits" and "Donor compensation").
One of the major contributions to the article's length in the references with a total of 115 sources. In addition, the article offers related readings(that aren't associated to Wikipedia) that the reader can quickly assess if any of the subjects pique his/her interest. The offered readings include: "Blood Donation and Processing", "How youths are supporting on blood emergency in Nepal?", "Deferred Donors: Anemia & Blood Donation", "British guidelines for transfusion medicine", and "Definitive guide for safe blood donation". Another important aspect of the article is the "See also" tab in the articles that directs the user to related Wikipedia articles: "Blood substitutes", "History of blood donation", "James Harrison (blood donor)", "List of blood donation agencies", "Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy", "Xenotransfusion", and "World Blood Donor Day". This is important concerning the topic of blood donation because it belongs to a major part of medical and biological subjects, and thus are closely related to other topics. If the reader is interested in blood donations, perhaps blood donation agencies will interest him/her as well as any controversy and substitutions of blood donation.
The REAL ASSIGNMENT
Blood Donations During Natural Disasters:
Blood donations tend to always be high in demand with numerous accounts repeatedly stating periodic shortages over the decades (Sass). However, this trend is disrupted during national disasters.  The trend demonstrates that people are donating the most during catastrophes when, arguably, donations are not as needed compared to periods without disasters (Sass).  From 1988 to 2013, it has been reported that there was a greater number of units donated (that is over 100 units) than used on patients for every national disaster (Schmidt). One of the most notable examples of this pattern was the September 11th attacks.  A study observed that compared to the four weeks before September 11th, there was an estimated increase of 18,700 donations from first-time donors for the first week after the attack (about 4,000 to about 22,700) while repeat donors increased their donations by 10,000 per week (about 16,400 to 26,400) (Glynn, Busch, Schreiber).  Therefore, in the first week after the attack on 9/11, there was an overall estimated 28,700 increase in donations compared to the average weekly donations made four weeks prior to the attack.  However, despite the substantial increase of donors, the rate that first-time donors would become repeat donors were the same before and after the attack(Glynn, Busch, Schreiber), demonstrating that for many donors, donations shortly following the attack were a one-time occurrence.   The occurrence of September 11 is evidence showcasing that many people who meet the requirements to donate do not donate as much as they could (Glynn, Busch, Schreiber).  To better understand the reasoning for the influx of donations, one must understand the core reasons for donating blood in the first place.  Multiple studies have shown that the main reason people donate is due to “altruism”, general awareness regarding the demand for blood, increased confidence in oneself, helping a personal friend/relative, and social pressure(Edwards and Zeichner).  The reason for the increase in donations is most likely due to altruism and national pride.  On the other hand, lack of blood donations can occur due to fear, lack of faith in the medical professionals, inconvenience, and the lack of consideration for donating(Drake).
The Need for Blood Donation
The American Red Cross states that each day an estimated 36,000 units of red blood cells are needed (American Red Cross) with not enough donors to match the demands.  Most shortages during the year occur between July 4th and Labor Day as well as between December 25th and January 1st.   Not to mention, there isn’t a consistent demand for each blood type.  One type of blood being in stock does not guarantee that another type is.  Blood banks may have some units in stock but lack others, ultimately causing the patients that need units for specific blood types to have delayed or canceled procedures (Glynn).  Additionally, every year there is an increase of around 5-7% for transfusions without an increase of donors to balance it as well as a growing population of elderly people that will need more transfusions in the future without a predicted increase in donations(McCarthy).  Along those lines, it is known that blood can expire and have a limited shelf life[90], making it essential for donors to continuously donate blood.
Bibliography: (not complete yet)
https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/how-blood-donations-help/blood-needs-blood-supply.html
McCarthy, L. J. 2007. How do I manage a blood shortage in a trans-
fusion service? Transfusion 47(5): 760–762.
Schmidt, P. J. 2002. Blood and disaster—Supply and demand. New
England Journal of Medicine 346(8): 617–620.
Sass, R. (2013). Toward a More Stable Blood Supply: Charitable Incentives, Donation Rates, and the Experience of September 11. American Journal of Bioethics, 13(6), 38–45. https://doi-org.rcbc.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.781703
Edwards PW, Zeichner A. Blood donor development: effects of personality, motivational and situational variables.  Pers Individ Dif.1985;6:743-751.Google Scholar
Oswalt RM. A review of blood donor motivation and recruitment.  Transfusion.1977;17:123-135.Google Scholar
Piliavin JA. Why do they give the gift of life? a review of research on blood donors since 1977.  Transfusion.1990;30:444-459.Google Scholar
Glynn SA, Kleinman SH, Schreiber GB.  et al.  Motivations to donate blood: demographic comparisons.  Transfusion.2002;42:216-225.Google Scholar
Drake AW. Public Attitudes and Decision Processes With Regard to Blood Donation: Final Report and Executive Summary. Cambridge, Mass: MIT; 1978:1-189.
Plans on the article:
will research donor benefits
history of blood donation should be included here (maybe the pre-modern world too)
section on why/why people don't donate
-major events that affected the blood donated in a population at a time (times of crisis)
Bibliography (possible articles that I will use) (I have more but I lost it when I logged out)
Karki, Surendra, et al. “Completeness and Accuracy of Self-Reported History of Blood Donation: Results from a Cohort of Older Adults in Australia.” Transfusion, vol. 59, Jan. 2019, pp. 26–31. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/trf.14986.
Pruszczyk, Katarzyna, et al. “Prior Blood Donations Do Not Affect Efficacy of G‐CSF Mobilization nor Outcomes of Haematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Healthy Donors.” Vox Sanguinis, vol. 114, no. 6, Aug. 2019, pp. 622–627. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/vox.12816.
Patel, Eshan U., et al. “Sociodemographic and Behavioral Characteristics Associated with Blood Donation in the United States: A Population-Based Study.” Transfusion, vol. 59, no. 9, Sept. 2019, pp. 2899–2907. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/trf.15415.
Clackett, Shawn, et al. “Attitudes and Willingness to Donate Blood among Gay and Bisexual Men in Australia.” Transfusion, vol. 60, no. 5, May 2020, pp. 965–973. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/trf.15768.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannah Stevenson (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignment 5 

message: The current description is incomplete. Currently it's having blood drawn voluntarily. That's phlebotomy, if it's any single word. Blood donation is actually having blood drawn for medical use as a treatment, including either transfusion or creation of pharmaceuticals. Is that too long? IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Short description says it should be "around 40 characters." That means that even the present short description is actually a bit long. It's a tough limit to satisfy. Many of our short descriptions are quite poor because of it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Having blood drawn to use in medical treatment" is 46 characters. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: Hb blood level < 13 g/dL reduced the antibody response by 63% (p=0.04). 
https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/Abstract/9000/Humoral Respo
:Link does not, in fact, lead to an article showing this correlation. IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood donation might reduce vaccine efficacy by lowering Hemoglobin