When I was growing up, the Red Cross used to call our house on a weekly basis. They were looking for my father, who was a regular blood donor, and they always called during dinner. These calls always infuriated my father – theoretically, they were calling to remind him to donate as soon as he was eligible, but often we’d get calls nightly for the week or two after he’d already donated again. He was not hesitant in sharing his frustration with the Red Cross representative on the other end of the line: why must they call during dinner? Why were there so many delays last time he donated? Why didn’t they know he had donated last week? Eventually we were instructed to tell the Red Cross he wasn’t home and to hang up; yelling was optional.
Today I donated blood for the fourth time, which is actually pretty pathetic given the number of times I could have donated by now. Yes, I’ve been turned away in the past because I was anemic, but I really don’t have a good excuse for most of the opportunities I’ve missed. The sad thing about my paltry four donations is that they make me a pretty good donor: only five percent of eligible
These dismal statistics are why the Red Cross harassed my father.
There are three main avenues from which the blood donation crisis needs to be addressed: first, the donation system needs a massive logistical overhaul; second, the medical community needs to be both more innovative – develop blood product alternatives that work; and, third, more people need to donate[1].
I’ll start with the last reason: donating blood is altruism at its most fundamental level. You’re giving part of yourself to someone who needs it, without asking for anything in return. At the Red Cross’s donor website, the I-gave-blood-today sticker each donor gets is described as a “badge of honor” that will make the wearer special in the eyes of his or her peers. That argument is really designed to appeal more to young donors, who are looking for reasons to be cool and admired, and I doubt that it actually wins over many potential donors.
That said, I’m wearing my sticker today, for a reason that surprises me – it’s Ash Wednesday. I haven’t been a practicing Catholic (or any sort of Catholic) in years, but Ash Wednesday still makes me contemplative. Wearing ashes on my forehead would be hypocritical at this point, since to do so would be to identify with a belief system and with dogma that I don’t truly support.
In lieu of ashes, I am wearing my blood donation sticker. It’s a statement of my belief system, and I don’t think it’s any less profound than the ashes I used to wear: altruism, one pint at a time. You could call this sort of ideal atheistic altruism, or altruistic atheism, though to me that sounds like the same misguided school of cheesy alliteration that gave us “compassionate conservatism,” which is a movement I do not associate with.
The blood donation system in this country needs a massive overhaul – that is undeniable. Some things have gotten streamlined since the first time I donated six years ago –the long list of questions about sexual and travel exposures are now on a computer instead of on paper, in tiny font. Still, it takes longer than it should, and it’s entirely understandable that people are loath to take time out of a busy day to donate, especially if they are unsure how long, exactly, it will take.
The ethics of blood donation ought to transcend political ideology and religion. The Red Cross should not have to bribe donors. If you can donate your blood, you should. Bottom line.
Basics to get you started:
- You can donate once every 8 weeks
- You have to be 17 or older and over 110 pounds to donate
- Yes, there are exclusion criteria – certain medications and travel locales will rule you out (see the Red Cross site above)
[1] Here again we can place some of the blame on the system – how are donors recruited and sustained?
