While they’ll let you bank blood specifically as a contingency for your own use later (because getting your own blood back is safer than getting someone else’s), I’m almost positive they don’t check to see whether you’ve donated before giving you a transfusion. They just make sure you aren’t a Jehovah’s Witness and give it to you. There are a lot of constraints on who can donate blood—I have a couple of friends who can’t on account of being on medications that would make it impossible for others to use their blood, for instance—so if people who donated blood had priority, I’m sure there would be an uproar from such individuals.
Actually, I can’t donate blood due to medications (and possibly also due to being at elevated risk for complications due to blood loss). So yeah, if I’m in a big accident and a lot of people need blood transfusions at once, I’ll probably be at the end of the line (I haven’t tested this though). I haven’t heard of any uproar, though.
Anyway, in a situation where they have to ration blood and to prioritize people, what other way is there to decide? First come first served? The ordering of who came first isn’t that precise. In a big accident a bunch of people would come in all at once. I can accept that “he donated blood so he gets it back first” is at least as fair a rule as “he was on the outer ambulance bed, so he came into ER twenty seconds before you, and gets it first”.
That article lists an interesting variation for Israel:
A simplified but effective description of the S.T.A.R.T. is taught in the Israeli army to non-medical personnel: the injured who are lying on the ground silently should be prepared for immediate transportation; injured lying on the ground but screaming are injured whose transportation can be delayed; and the walking wounded need help less urgently.
Take-home lesson: if you’re injured in the Israeli army, don’t scream for help, because that will make us stop helping you. Just play dead instead. :-)
While they’ll let you bank blood specifically as a contingency for your own use later (because getting your own blood back is safer than getting someone else’s), I’m almost positive they don’t check to see whether you’ve donated before giving you a transfusion. They just make sure you aren’t a Jehovah’s Witness and give it to you. There are a lot of constraints on who can donate blood—I have a couple of friends who can’t on account of being on medications that would make it impossible for others to use their blood, for instance—so if people who donated blood had priority, I’m sure there would be an uproar from such individuals.
Actually, I can’t donate blood due to medications (and possibly also due to being at elevated risk for complications due to blood loss). So yeah, if I’m in a big accident and a lot of people need blood transfusions at once, I’ll probably be at the end of the line (I haven’t tested this though). I haven’t heard of any uproar, though.
Anyway, in a situation where they have to ration blood and to prioritize people, what other way is there to decide? First come first served? The ordering of who came first isn’t that precise. In a big accident a bunch of people would come in all at once. I can accept that “he donated blood so he gets it back first” is at least as fair a rule as “he was on the outer ambulance bed, so he came into ER twenty seconds before you, and gets it first”.
I have no idea how they decide. Do we have a doctor in the house?
I’m not a doctor, but I believe this is how they decide.
That article lists an interesting variation for Israel:
Take-home lesson: if you’re injured in the Israeli army, don’t scream for help, because that will make us stop helping you. Just play dead instead. :-)