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

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.