5 ms·

My guess is that the person who needs blood cares more about getting the blood or plasma than the small amount of PFAS in it, which they likely have already. I

by skrbjc 4y ago

My guess is that the person who needs blood cares more about getting the blood or plasma than the small amount of PFAS in it, which they likely have already. If this causes more people to donate, it's probably a good thing overall, even if the people doing it are doing so in the hopes of cleansing their own system of these chemicals.

giantg2 4y ago
While I generally agree the idea that it's not harmful enough to stop a transfer, I disagree with the basis of the argument. We could also say that given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood …yes?
- PeterisP 4y ago
  With respect to HIV, there is an alternative to get non-contaminated blood. With respect to PFAS, which is a general societal/environmental issue it's likely that all donated blood has roughly the same PFAS levels, so recipient either gets blood with PFAS or no blood at all; and the "new" blood might have slightly more or less PFAS than the recipients current blood, but the recipient already has a comparable level of PFAS anyway.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Yes, and that is a better argument than someone simply being desperate enough to accept contaminated blood rather than die.
  - JamisonM 4y ago
    I would argue additionally that once the person in need of blood has recovered they can simply donate blood and in so doing enjoy the benefits of reduced PFAS levels and hopefully save someone else's life with that blood!
- tricky777 4y ago
  if there is no other choice. Yes, reluctantly, I would accept hiv. (i.e. I accept days to years duration of life vs minutes to hours) The thing is, donated blood is always in short supply. you dont have much choice, when you have a serious blood-loss. edit: I would be very angry if sombody would have chosen to use hiv blood on me while I was uncounciuos. Similar to how I would be angry if my arm would be amputated, while my conciousness was away.

by skrbjc 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

While I generally agree the idea that it's not harmful enough to stop a transfer, I disagree with the basis of the argument. We could also say that given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> given a choice between death and HIV, the blood recipient would still want the blood …yes?
PeterisP 4y ago
With respect to HIV, there is an alternative to get non-contaminated blood. With respect to PFAS, which is a general societal/environmental issue it's likely that all donated blood has roughly the same PFAS levels, so recipient either gets blood with PFAS or no blood at all; and the "new" blood might have slightly more or less PFAS than the recipients current blood, but the recipient already has a comparable level of PFAS anyway.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Yes, and that is a better argument than someone simply being desperate enough to accept contaminated blood rather than die.
- JamisonM 4y ago
  I would argue additionally that once the person in need of blood has recovered they can simply donate blood and in so doing enjoy the benefits of reduced PFAS levels and hopefully save someone else's life with that blood!
tricky777 4y ago
if there is no other choice. Yes, reluctantly, I would accept hiv. (i.e. I accept days to years duration of life vs minutes to hours) The thing is, donated blood is always in short supply. you dont have much choice, when you have a serious blood-loss. edit: I would be very angry if sombody would have chosen to use hiv blood on me while I was uncounciuos. Similar to how I would be angry if my arm would be amputated, while my conciousness was away.