Men are at risk of death, especially from lung failure, if they receive a blood transfusion from a woman who has ever been pregnant. Women show no increased risk whether or not they have been pregnant. Nobody knows why.
Well... when I first donated blood after being pregnant, they gave me a pamphlet on "transfusion related acute lung injury" (TRALI). They said that some women develop human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) due to exposure to fetal proteins during pregnancy (because the proteins are foreign to her). They don't hurt the woman or baby, but if her blood is transfused into someone with matching proteins, the antigens could react to the patient's body and cause possibly fatal lung injury (usually in the first 6 hours after transfusion). (People who have had a transplant or transfusion can also have these HLAs.)
Anyway... the pamphlet said that the blood would be tested (twice), and if it came back positive for these HLAs, then my donation would be used for scientific purposes (i.e. not transfused into anyone) and I would be ineligible to donate for life. So I don't know why these researchers are saying that this is some weird, unknown issue. They probably just need better testing of their blood products.
Yeah, that's right. Young blood is supposed to be fantastically good for you. I suppose once we get Single Payer it'll come with mandatory blood donations from those 18-29, unpregnant persons.
It doesn't sound like this is very common at all. 2 in 10,000 risk overall (whether you're male or female, regardless of the donor's sex).
Now you have to figure in the chance that, on top of being one of the 2 in 10,000 people, you received blood from a woman, and not just that but one who had ever been pregnant, and (if Laura's information was correct) not just that, but the donor's antigens happen to match proteins in the recipient's body.
I hate articles that don't give you enough information to assess what "significantly" even means :p
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of it being a significant risk. I was just thinking about all these articles I keep reading about how all this is a 'social construct' and sex is just 'assigned' at birth.
Well, except that's totally wrong, as stories like this show.
I wasn't so much responding to anything you said as venting my irritation with the way the article was written.
But now that you bring it up, I wonder whether receiving a transfusion from a transwoman who also identifies as "formerly pregnant" holds the same risk?
Soon, testing transmen who have been pregnant will be identified as transphobic, because only women's donations can cause this problem, and transmen aren't women and were never women, merely "assigned female at birth" until a more caring, evolved society provided "gender-confirmation surgery" to remove their troubling primary and secondary sex organs.
(Actually, more likely someone will protest that the pamphlets assume only women can have been pregnant. Whoever is in charge will rewrite them to say "women or men who have been pregnant", and donation personnel will be carefully educated in daylong sensitivity training sessions to never say "women" without adding "or men".)
I can sort of see how the antigens develop in the pregnant woman and could be dangerous to a donor, but it's not obvious why the antigens would be more dangerous to men than women. Perhaps female bodies have a built-in protection we're not aware of, given that they're at least biologically vulnerable to fetal proteins at any time. Weird.
It's why the ancient Hebrews had sacrifice and cleansing rituals, where they splash the blood on the Mercy Seat, the Arc of the Covenant itself, in order to cleanse it of human impurities and sins.
Then they would eat the meat.
A lot of people thought the Aztecs were insane. But it seems that this kind of blood transfusion is used by the powerful to maintain their longevities. Because the life is in the blood, and eating the heart and the blood can transfer some of the energy although at enormous losses. Which is why they needed a lot of human sacrifices.
10 comments:
Well... when I first donated blood after being pregnant, they gave me a pamphlet on "transfusion related acute lung injury" (TRALI). They said that some women develop human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) due to exposure to fetal proteins during pregnancy (because the proteins are foreign to her). They don't hurt the woman or baby, but if her blood is transfused into someone with matching proteins, the antigens could react to the patient's body and cause possibly fatal lung injury (usually in the first 6 hours after transfusion). (People who have had a transplant or transfusion can also have these HLAs.)
Anyway... the pamphlet said that the blood would be tested (twice), and if it came back positive for these HLAs, then my donation would be used for scientific purposes (i.e. not transfused into anyone) and I would be ineligible to donate for life. So I don't know why these researchers are saying that this is some weird, unknown issue. They probably just need better testing of their blood products.
Blood from old guys like me is less valuable, but old guys like me are the plurality of donors.
Yeah, that's right. Young blood is supposed to be fantastically good for you. I suppose once we get Single Payer it'll come with mandatory blood donations from those 18-29, unpregnant persons.
It doesn't sound like this is very common at all. 2 in 10,000 risk overall (whether you're male or female, regardless of the donor's sex).
Now you have to figure in the chance that, on top of being one of the 2 in 10,000 people, you received blood from a woman, and not just that but one who had ever been pregnant, and (if Laura's information was correct) not just that, but the donor's antigens happen to match proteins in the recipient's body.
I hate articles that don't give you enough information to assess what "significantly" even means :p
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of it being a significant risk. I was just thinking about all these articles I keep reading about how all this is a 'social construct' and sex is just 'assigned' at birth.
Well, except that's totally wrong, as stories like this show.
Ah (light slowly dawning in tired, aged brain) :p
I wasn't so much responding to anything you said as venting my irritation with the way the article was written.
But now that you bring it up, I wonder whether receiving a transfusion from a transwoman who also identifies as "formerly pregnant" holds the same risk?
*running away*
Soon, testing transmen who have been pregnant will be identified as transphobic, because only women's donations can cause this problem, and transmen aren't women and were never women, merely "assigned female at birth" until a more caring, evolved society provided "gender-confirmation surgery" to remove their troubling primary and secondary sex organs.
(Actually, more likely someone will protest that the pamphlets assume only women can have been pregnant. Whoever is in charge will rewrite them to say "women or men who have been pregnant", and donation personnel will be carefully educated in daylong sensitivity training sessions to never say "women" without adding "or men".)
I can sort of see how the antigens develop in the pregnant woman and could be dangerous to a donor, but it's not obvious why the antigens would be more dangerous to men than women. Perhaps female bodies have a built-in protection we're not aware of, given that they're at least biologically vulnerable to fetal proteins at any time. Weird.
Dangerous to a "recipient," not a donor.
The life is in the blood.
It's why the ancient Hebrews had sacrifice and cleansing rituals, where they splash the blood on the Mercy Seat, the Arc of the Covenant itself, in order to cleanse it of human impurities and sins.
Then they would eat the meat.
A lot of people thought the Aztecs were insane. But it seems that this kind of blood transfusion is used by the powerful to maintain their longevities. Because the life is in the blood, and eating the heart and the blood can transfer some of the energy although at enormous losses. Which is why they needed a lot of human sacrifices.
Post a Comment