Blood Donor Stain...

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In case you didnt know, when one gives blood some medical staff are trained to mark an ear or a fingernail with UV flourescent liquid called "blood donor stain". Thing is, does anyone ever consent to being marked with a flourscent liquid as part of donating blood? If they do that without people's consent what else might they do to....'mark' people?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle +Search

[idknow]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In case you didnt know, when one gives blood some medical staff are trained to mark an ear or a fingernail with UV flourescent liquid called "blood donor stain". Thing is, does anyone ever consent to being marked with a flourscent liquid as part of donating blood? If they do that without people's consent what else might they do to....'mark' people?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle +Search

well, i'm not cattle to be marked, prodded, vaccinated, poked or otherwise inventoried.

[Shoonra]

This is an anti-fraud measure similar to that purple finger that was used in the Iraqi elections. Blood banks do not want a person donating more than one pint in a week or something like that. This little mark, which can only be seen with an ultraviolet light, washes off in a day or two (depending on one's hygenic practices) helps avoid tapping the same person for blood too soon.

[RICKO]

I would have to agree with shoonra, there are bigger things at hand.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The goal was not to sound alarmist, but instead to highlight a 'mentality'. While there might seem to be logic. Consider that there are alternatives to 'marking' someone secretly. If the donor gave blood too frequently might such not manifest in some other manner such as: 1) the donor having blood pressure irregularites, 2) the donor being weak/anemic, 3) the donor looking pale or sickly, 4) the donor manifesting health problems or contraindications associated with being drained of blood on a regular basis, 5) the donar having needle marks/scars/scabs from being poked with a needle on a regular basis? The logic for secretly marking someone is pale and sparse. Its like the situation of shooting a man over suspicion that he has a gun after he obviously has gone through three layers of security that alleged to be manned by professionals. Would not a medical professional be able to spot someone who donates to frequently without utilizing blood donor stain or is does that outside of their skill/training? Let us reason?

As for voting? Totally different matter.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This is an anti-fraud measure similar to that purple finger that was used in the Iraqi elections. Blood banks do not want a person donating more than one pint in a week or something like that. This little mark, which can only be seen with an ultraviolet light, washes off in a day or two (depending on one's hygenic practices) helps avoid tapping the same person for blood too soon.

since when did they hae to accept the liability of draining too much blood from someone? is that their problem or the fool's problem?

respectfully, you guys are thinkin on the wrong side of the activity-track

it's never about "safety", it's ALWAYS about commerce!

liability is about insurance, and
insurance is always Admiralty!

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This is an anti-fraud measure similar to that purple finger that was used in the Iraqi elections. Blood banks do not want a person donating more than one pint in a week or something like that. This little mark, which can only be seen with an ultraviolet light, washes off in a day or two (depending on one's hygenic practices) helps avoid tapping the same person for blood too soon.

where is the fraud (a term in commerce) for giving too much blood?!?

that is just ridiculous

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
How about *asking* "When was the last time you gave blood?" I mean for a lawyer would a form and statement/waiver saying that they havent given blood for so many days make more sense? The half-assed reasoning behind some things seems often too overlooked.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The goal was not to sound alarmist, but instead to highlight a 'mentality'. While there might seem to be logic. Consider that there are alternatives to 'marking' someone secretly. If the donor gave blood too frequently might such not manifest in some other manner such as: 1) the donor having blood pressure irregularites, 2) the donor being weak/anemic, 3) the donor looking pale or sickly, 4) the donor manifesting health problems or contraindications associated with being drained of blood on a regular basis, 5) the donar having needle marks/scars/scabs from being poked with a needle on a regular basis? The logic for secretly marking someone is pale and sparse. Its like the situation of shooting a man over suspicion that he has a gun after he obviously has gone through three layers of security that alleged to be manned by professionals. Would not a medical professional be able to spot someone who donates to frequently without utilizing blood donor stain or is does that outside of their skill/training? Let us reason?

As for voting? Totally different matter.

exactly right!

[Shoonra]

One reason for the "secret mark" is that, back when blood banks were paying people for their blood donations (and it's possible some still are, at least for rare types), some unscrupulous types (frequently, but not exclusively, skid row residents) would try to get a bit extra drinking money by selling more blood than was safe. They were willing to take the risk to themselves for becoming anemic, but there was also a risk to the recipient of a transfusion because the second pint in such a short time would be less nutritive.

Additionally, nowadays especially, there are concerns that some people might be tapped, and then a lab test shows their blood is tainted in some way (hep, hiv, etc.) so it must be thrown out ... and this mark is an attempt to inhibit such a person (there was a very shortlived, very much condemned, suggestion many years ago from one - only one - gay activist that an effort should be made to spread AIDS far and wide throughout the straight population in order to stimulate public money for finding an AIDS cure - nobody would second the suggestion but it was enough to make everybody worry).

If you are donating blood, you get a (temporary) needle mark, a sticker for your coat, and expressions of gratitude. Why begrudge a (washable) dab of invisible paint?