[byteCoder]

As a melanoma survivor, I'm no longer eligible to be an organ donor. In fact, I could even donate blood until the American Red Cross changed their guidelines for eligibility in 2017:

Benign cancer or tumor: Acceptable to donate

Basal cell carcinoma: Deferred for four weeks after date of surgical removal

Squamous cell carcinoma (skin, cervix, or oral cavity): Deferred for four weeks after date of surgical removal

Malignant cancer (e.g., breast, prostate, or colon cancer and melanoma): Deferred for one year after treatment is completed

Leukemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and myeloma: Ineligible to donate permanently

Kaposi’s sarcoma: Ineligible to donate permanently

[tamcap]

Also, for blood at least: 5 years (cumulative) in Europe: Ineligible to donate permanently

Which drives me nuts...

[jimmy1]

Don't donate to the Red Cross anyways. I was a long time donor and I recently told them off when I actually took the time to read the packets and disclosures and it turns out they ship your blood off to universities for testing and research -- with or without your consent, which I object to on principle alone, but also there is now a moral unknown for me if my blood is going towards research I morally object to. Again, maybe not most people's here problem with it, but on principle I do not like not being in control of what is done with own blood (I want it to go help people, not be test subjects), and probably most people here can at least agree with that.

Also, they sell your blood to hospitals at a hefty markup. Donate directly to the hospitals -- most if you walk in and say you are there to donate blood will happily accept you. Second best is probably a community blood center.

[sokoloff]

I accept your view as your own, but I personally believe that research at universities is helping people, just indirectly and with a time shift and a level of uncertainty.

[jimmy1]

I am sure it is, and I vastly support probably >95% of it, and more than happy to if I am given the information of which university and for what type of research in the event that there is a moral concern of mine, or ethical concern with the university in question.

[sigi45]

Is this different than in Europe? We do have lots of high profile University Hospitals. Hospitals around / with university for our highest education and research.

Why would you not to donate blood to them?

[jimmy1]

I would most likely elect to donate to the vast majority of them, however, compulsory use of my blood in research without giving me the option to even give my consent, or opt out in the rare occurrence that it is of moral or ethical concern to me, is anti-American, and I disagree on it on two accounts: both principally, and practically. In an age where we give up more and more of our liberties and freedoms for a little more convenience, I believe you have to take stands where you can. If the Red Cross would like to ask me if I would like my blood used for medical research, and would disclose what type of research, I would be more than happy to donate to them again.

[rleigh]

I can't speak for the Red Cross, but in the research settings I was involved in, donated blood (or tissue) was subject to strict review, from ethical review boards, guaranteed donor anonymity and required record-keeping.

Blood (in my setting) was from healthy anonymous donors, and was used for experimental models. The blood would be spun down on a gradient to separate into red and white and other fractions, and we would typically take just the white cells for immunology experiments, perhaps with more specific FACS/MACS separation as well, before use in the actual experiments. Because we wanted "generic" white cells, the donor background was irrelevant and we had no information about the donor. [We could provide the package lot number to the NHS if there was a need to pass information back, but we ourselves would never be allowed to know the identity.]

The other side was diseased samples from sick patients. For example, cancer biopsies. One lab member did a lot of work with prostate cancer, and got samples delivered after prostate biopsies or surgeries in local hospitals. These required explicit donor consent, on top of the anonymity already in place. They can again be tied back via sample/lot numbers, but the patient identity is fully protected.

The main problem with asking for consent with blood donations for specific medical research is that the blood isn't allocated for a specific purpose up front. It's easier to ask generically for consent for any purpose, then it can be directed to research if it's surplus, or split into fractions and used for multiple purposes. Sometimes we didn't know we would get any blood until the hospital phoned us a few hours before delivery, and sometimes they didn't have any. It's difficult logistically to handle this (though not impossible, of course).

[ekianjo]

> Why would you not to donate blood to them?

Because you may want your blood to be used for saving people, not to conduct random experiments.

[rleigh]

Even if it's surplus to requirements? It has a shelf life, demand is variable, and it's a better fate than simply throwing it away.

I'm a regular donor in the UK, and it also happens to our donations. It can be used as is, separated into different blood products (plasma, platelets etc.), or used for research purposes. It's not realistic to expect it only to be used for transfusions; there's a lot of uses for it in addition, and I can't see why you would want to control that.

The immunology research group I used to work in routinely received blood deliveries from the NHS blood service. It was used for HIV research if I recall correctly, and was done in partnership with the NHS.

[nradov]

University experiments involving human specimens are not "random". They are all approved by ethical review panels, and presumably may help to save people in the future.