3 ms·

Yes, I saw this both on the German registry (that lists general anesthesia as the only option for the marrow collection, but 90% of donations are supposed to be

Yes, I saw this both on the German registry (that lists general anesthesia as the only option for the marrow collection, but 90% of donations are supposed to be stem cell donations from blood) and some English-language one (I think from the UK) and just double-checked the German one. https://www.nmdp.org/get-involved/join-the-registry/donate-bone-marrow/bone-marrow-donation-process https://www.nmdp.org/get-involved/join-the-registry/donate-b... says 96% of bone marrow donors get general anesthesia. Both sites I saw also stated that you should only sign up if you're willing to do both, which given the "90% donate stem cells only" number seems extremely odd (I'm sure there are many people willing to donate stem cells while being unwilling to undergo general anesthesia).

eszed 2y ago
Interesting. I'm leaning towards either "doctor was wrong" or "practice has changed". If the latter, then probably to convince more people to go ahead with the procedure. Certainly 20+ years ago people did refuse un-sedated marrow donations - it was a big problem, with some really sad-story consequences. The pitch at the time was that the level of pain with a donation was equivalent to falling and bruising your tailbone (accurate to my experience), but some people aren't willing to accept (what seems to me to be minimal) personal discomfort in trade for another's life. That makes me sad. If I were to be lucky enough to be a match I'd also be more concerned about the risk (to me!) of general aenesthesia, than dealing with some minor pain, and elect to do it without. I agree with you about the "both" requirement, which seems counterproductive. I don't think stem cell donation had even been considered, far less become possible, back when I was more (by proxy) involved in the space.

3 ms·

Yes, I saw this both on the German registry (that lists general anesthesia as the only option for the marrow collection, but 90% of donations are supposed to be

by tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

eszed 2y ago
Interesting. I'm leaning towards either "doctor was wrong" or "practice has changed". If the latter, then probably to convince more people to go ahead with the procedure. Certainly 20+ years ago people did refuse un-sedated marrow donations - it was a big problem, with some really sad-story consequences. The pitch at the time was that the level of pain with a donation was equivalent to falling and bruising your tailbone (accurate to my experience), but some people aren't willing to accept (what seems to me to be minimal) personal discomfort in trade for another's life. That makes me sad. If I were to be lucky enough to be a match I'd also be more concerned about the risk (to me!) of general aenesthesia, than dealing with some minor pain, and elect to do it without. I agree with you about the "both" requirement, which seems counterproductive. I don't think stem cell donation had even been considered, far less become possible, back when I was more (by proxy) involved in the space.