[1] https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/learn-about-blood/plasma/...
What they don't say is whether these 200 donors constitute more or less than 100% of the clinical need for anti-D plasma.
If my contributions were that valuable, I'd wonder if it made sense to keep me on life support just to extract my blood every two weeks. But alas, blood donors in Australia must be 81 years or younger, so I guess the question is academic in this case.
It's a really interesting somewhat thought provoking idea. To some extent these people are valuable enough that turning them into blood factories after cerebral death is the more moral option?
If he consented when he was alive, I don't see how it could be moral to ignore his wishes and let more people die as a result.
I guess laws will get in the way of this kind of thing though.
I can see it from a "yes" perspective and from a "no" perspective, and I can find reasons to regret saying either. Agency, autonomy and compassion are critical features of the scenarios that have the least regrets.
At the bottom of that article it indicated they've successfully recreated the antibody in a lab, I hope that saves a lot of families from suffering.
On the list of "best options" for my vegetative body, this would rate fairly highly.
But yeah, like assisted suicide, there are people with non-aligned motives who could be incentivized to coerce a decision from weak/befuddled/old patients.
There are many decisions I'd like to make now, while of sound mind and body, that I would like to be respected when I am no longer able to make decisions for myself. The state allows some of them, but not all.
we already turn people into transplant organs source, so i don't see much difference between harvesting a kidney, heart or blood
> Once you’re 81 you must have donated in Australia in the last 5 years to remain eligible.
https://www.lifeblood.com.au/faq/eligibility/other/age?_gl=1....
(That’s the nastiest long URL I’ve ever seen. All I did was click the “find out more” link here: https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/eligibility/quiz )
(It's probably just a load of analytics & tracking gumpf, maybe 'ga' = Google Analytics, I don't know.)
More info here if you want: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/10071811
But there is also monoclonal antibodies for cancer, and this antibody production looks somewhat similar.
I tried doing it too but it's a lot more involved. I don't have this anti-D thing though. Just normal blood.
You need to go through an interview, a medical check and various forms.
Once I went through all that they told me I can't give any :(. Multiple sex partners, regular tattoos etc. I did want to and was prepared to do it regularly. I can see how they are having difficulty getting enough. But anyway I tried.
I wish they were better at screening blood so I could help.
>According to Lifeblood, 17% of Australian women who become pregnant end up needing anti-D injections — and most of the country's supply comes from a pool of less than 200 regular plasma donors.
This was the most shocking part of this article though. I've never heard of "anti-D" but it sounds incredibly needed and that's a very small supply.