The blood service organizations are responsible for making sure that they accept only healthy blood from people who are healthy enough to give blood without ill effect. Because of that, they do have to turn down certain potential donors. At the same time, the best potential donors are often unwilling to donate for various reasons. This was already a problem long before HIV/AIDS came along, which has only made it worse. (Not only does it eliminate more potential donors than before, but it's also caused more potential donors to be unwilling to donate, even though there is virtually no additional risk to them.) Depending on the circumstances, it may seem that the blood service organizations are turning down "most" potential donors, but they accept every one they possibly can. The real issue is how many people are willing to donote in the first place, which is what causes the chronic blood shortage.

I understand what Merry says. However, based on my own experiences since 1968, when I first tried to donate blood, I would have to say that trying to be a donor is very frustrating. At first, they turned me down because I had jaundice when I was 8 years old. They said that I could never donate. Fine. Along comes a change in policy and now you can donate if you had jaundice but only if you had it before you were 10 years old. Off I go again to offer my blood. Now they say I can't donate because my hemoglogin is too low. I forget what the cut-off was , but let's say it was 12.0 - mine was 11.9. Just 0.1 below their arbitrary cut-off. Then my doctor put me on iron (for other reasons) and my blood tests all come back fine . I offer my blood again - by their test, my hemoglobin is still too low. After the third try, I decided to give up. Now that I have reached menopause, my hemoglobin has risen. But now I am on medications that I think might disqualify me. Am I going to try to donate yet again? Not on your life - there is only so much rejection a person can take as a potential volunteer. I wonder if they reject more women than men due to hemoglobin counts? Then they have the nerve to broadcast TV ads, with an emotional pitch, trying to make you feel guilty because so few people donate blood. I think that I am usually a generous person, but this is one case where my donations will go elsewhere - digging wells in developing countries or funding small loans for women in rural Africa. Someplace that doesn't whine at me. You can probably tell from the tone (and the rant) that I was the one who asked the question.

some people have nothing better to do than to complain.

Lets look at the question on the recievers side of the debate. I've been there and believe me things do go through your head! I would certainly rather know that I was receiving blood of an excellent quallity, rather than worry that some how a batch of unhealthy blood slipped through the system, which happend to be the blood I was recieving and caused me more problems than I had, before I received the blood. I would agree that any potential risks, or worries that the people taking the blood have regarding the donor's health, then it's better to be safe than sorry, and if it mean sometimes turning down perfectly healthy specimen, then so be it.

Well, I think they have to be choosy about who can donate blood. Would go want blood infected with HIV, syphilus, malaria, Hepatitis B and C, etc? My dad got Hep C from a blood transfusion and was VERY UNHAPPY about it.

I agree with you. I tried to donate several times and they always had a reason why I couldn't. Now it seems like if you are on ANY medication at all you can't donate. I get sick of hearing how desperate they are but it's their own fault. I know blood is used fast but they could have twice or even three times more donors if they wouldn't be so picky with the donors. I am not saying they should let people with Hepatitis or HIV donate but I do think they make up their rules as they go along.

A big part of the reason that they have to reject so many people is because people who have had donations and become infected as a result have sued, in spite of the fact that without the donation they would have died anyway. As a result blood services have a duty of care not only to recipients but also to themselves to make sure that they don't get sued. Certainly in Britain, and I worked as a scientist for our blood service for a time, the budget is stretched enough as it is and litigation can be ill afforded.