# Walking Blood Donors - Article



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Jun 2006)

I found this article an interesting read.........

Canadian troops going to Afghanistan tested to be 'walking blood donors'
By SHERYL UBELACKER
  
TORONTO (CP) - For the first time since the Second World War, Canada's military is testing soon-to-be-deployed troops so they can act as "walking blood donors" in the event of mass casualties or special transfusion needs for their wounded comrades in Afghanistan. 
Almost 500 soldiers from Ontario's CFB Petawawa who are preparing to leave for Afghanistan this summer volunteered to have blood drawn late this week under an agreement with the Canadian Blood Services, which will type and test the samples for donor eligibility, the agency told The Canadian Press on Friday. 

Almost 250 soldiers from Edmonton were tested in January and the military is in discussions for a similar troop-screening arrangement with Hema-Quebec, which looks after blood donations in that province. 
Once in Afghanistan, authorized soldiers could be called on to donate blood in an emergency, which could then be transfused immediately into an injured colleague. An adult can donate one unit of blood every 56 days. 
Currently, Canadian medical personnel in Afghanistan have only 80 units of frozen blood on hand. Depending on the severity of injury and the type of blood required - for instance AB or O-negative - even one wounded soldier could put a serious dent in that supply. 

Indeed, a severe injury of a Canadian soldier in northern Afghanistan a couple of years ago - before the current mission near Kandahar - required 26 units of blood. The soldier was transfused with blood from the U.S. military, which has long had a walking donor program, said Col. Maureen Haberstock, director of health services operations. 
"It's these sort of cases where you might want to have some additional insurance, although they're extremely rare," Haberstock said from Ottawa. "The lesson learned here is that it's a capability that's rarely used but is useful in very special circumstances and as insurance for mass casualty situations. 
"We're not doing this because we don't think we have enough blood; we've planned for that," she said, adding that since the Kandahar mission began in January, "we've had enough for all the casualties we've had so far." 

"It's something that I think the soldiers in the chain of command are very much behind because for obvious reasons they want all the insurance they can have going over there as well." 
Cpl. Adam Read, a member of support services, didn't hesitate to sign up to become a blood donor. 
"I think it's a fantastic program that they started up," the 31-year-old, married father of two from Barrie, Ont., said Friday from CFB Petawawa, near Ottawa. "I think it's a program they should have had in effect for previous tours - but no other tour's like the one we're going on now." 

Read, who was in Kosovo in 1999 and Bosnia in 2003 -2004, will ship out to Afghanistan in August for a tour of at least six months. About 2,200 troops in the Petawawa-based battle group will travel to the insurgency-torn country in July and August to relieve an equal number of soldiers and support staff from the current mission. 
"I feel that if a soldier's going out and putting his life on the line - and I know for myself if I'm on the table and someone's going to give me their blood - then I should do the same to a fellow soldier." 
Ian Mumford, chief operating officer of the Canadian Blood Services, said his agency provided the staff to draw blood samples from the soldiers, which its labs will then test for such diseases as HIV, hepatitis C and West Nile virus. 

The agency, whose origins began with blood-banking for the Canadian Forces during the Second World War, has also trained three nurses and two laboratory technicians to draw blood from donor soldiers in Afghanistan, Mumford said. 
The Edmonton and Petawawa soldiers, who all volunteered to be donors, were asked to provide the same health information as any civilian donor and their blood is tested for the same diseases, he said. "These troops are being treated exactly as if they were regular blood donors here in Canada." 

All information is kept strictly confidential, unless something turns up in the blood that would make a soldier ineligible to be a donor. In that case, military medical personnel as well as the individual would be informed. 
Canadian Blood Services is absorbing the $30,000 cost of blood testing for this deployment and the costs of any missions in the future, Mumford said. "We are funded by taxpayers and it is our view that taxpayers would expect us to provide this service to the Armed Forces. 

"What we're providing really helps ensure that Canadian troops that are posted abroad are getting the same high standards of blood products that they would if they were here in Canada." 

 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/06/09/1623323-cp.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2006)

Interesting, indeed....

Certainly makes the issue of whether you've been whoring around and picking nasty bugs up MORE than just something between you, your spouse, and the Information Privacy people.  Talk about, "If you sleep with me, you're sleeping with anyone in my section or platoon who may need my blood to save their lives."


----------



## navymich (10 Jun 2006)

A soldier's blood may test clean now, but what about 5 months down the road when he becomes a donor?  If you were the guy needing a transfusion, would you take that chance?  I mean, on one hand you've gotta be thinking great, this could save my life.  But there has to be that voice of doubt in your head (if you're conscious of course  ) wondering what you could be getting yourself into.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2006)

Zackly, although there may be an argument to be made similar to the use of tourniquets - you're at risk for one impact if you do it, but you're at risk of something *far* more "unfixable" if you don't.

Any medical experts reading who can share some experience re:  how well this works elsewhere, esp. in these days of all kindsa blood borne worries?


----------



## Springroll (10 Jun 2006)

I think this is a great idea, as long as these troops are being tested very regularily....
but then again, if I had my choice to get blood or die, I would pick to get the blood.


----------



## Hot Lips (10 Jun 2006)

There of course isn't 100% assurance that you will not contract a blood borne disease from a transfusion...I will not quote the numbers...because I would be inaccurate; I am sure...would be a few years since I knew the percentage risks...

Nevertheless, in the civilian word you may have your own blood drawn ahead of time and saved if you are having surgery and may need a transfusion...if it were possible to do this with the CF I think that would be as sure fire as you can get that you won't get someone else "Kooties"...just your own back  

HL


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jun 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Interesting, indeed....
> 
> Certainly makes the issue of whether you've been whoring around and picking nasty bugs up MORE than just something between you, your spouse, and the Information Privacy people.  Talk about, "If you sleep with me, you're sleeping with anyone in my section or platoon who may need my blood to save their lives."



So what would you propose? Banning fornication? Tattoos? Travel to Africa?

Few people in this day and age are celibate prior to marrying (or entering a monogamous relationship), and this is about saving troops lives.

You have a valid point, so I propose that a waiver be added, where people concerned about contracting blood borne diseases from other troops are permitted to refuse treatment, even if the result is fatal. I'll take their share - I'd take life with a blood borne disease over death any day.


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> So what would you propose? Banning fornication? Tattoos? Travel to Africa?
> 
> Few people in this day and age are celibate prior to marrying (or entering a monogamous relationship), and this is about saving troops lives.
> 
> You have a valid point, so I propose that a waiver be added, where people concerned about contracting blood borne diseases from other troops are permitted to refuse treatment, even if the result is fatal. I'll take their share - I'd take life with a blood borne disease over death any day.



Exactly! :warstory:


----------



## medicineman (10 Jun 2006)

I see no real problems with this as long as these people are tested regularly in theatre for malaria, leischmaniasis and hep.  It`s easier to get blood from people there than it is to have it shipped in - we had a problem in Haiti where we nearly lost the blood supply that came in because of aircraft problems, courier problems and such.  It could have been a mess - literally.  When the Germans had the bad car bombing happen to them in Kabul, we were caught short - we had no whole blood there with us and had to go through the records we had to find people that had the blood groups that were needed most.  Makes more sense this way (and if it makes sense we often don`t do it  ;D).

MM


----------



## HollywoodHitman (13 Jun 2006)

These walking donor services have been required more than once on this roto.


----------



## kj_gully (21 Jun 2006)

Does anyone know if there is a protocol for "light duties" for a donor? I wouldn't want a soldier hunting bad guys @ high altitudes for a while (month?2 weeks?) after donating a litre. A great article in this Journal of Special Operations Medicine on walking donors, with a case study where a fella in Afghanistan was saved by transfusing 2 units of blood from walking donors after taking a small arms round in the calf. He also previously received 5 litres saline, and epi to resus from p.e.a .


----------



## McG (21 Jun 2006)

This screening was done with the turn-in of accompanied baggage during the DAG.

One problem is that the screening can only be done in Canada.  This means there is no option of screening pers that could not get through prior to deployment (unless they go back to Canada on HLTA or a TAV), and pers cannot be screened again after an HLTA in Tailand.


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Jun 2006)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if there is a protocol for "light duties" for a donor? I wouldn't want a soldier hunting bad guys @ high altitudes for a while (month?2 weeks?) after donating a litre. A great article in this Journal of Special Operations Medicine on walking donors, with a case study where a fella in Afghanistan was saved by transfusing 2 units of blood from walking donors after taking a small arms round in the calf. He also previously received 5 litres saline, and epi to resus from p.e.a .


His name would be "Lucky" if he made it

HL


----------



## kj_gully (23 Jun 2006)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> was saved


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jun 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> This screening was done with the turn-in of accompanied baggage during the DAG.
> One problem is that the screening can only be done in Canada.  This means there is no option of screening pers that could not get through prior to deployment (unless they go back to Canada on HLTA or a TAV), and pers cannot be screened again after an HLTA in Tailand.



Exactly my thoughts! Guys, give her one for the battalion, dont dont 'bring one home' for the battalion!  Perhaps some sort of 'red flag' system so guys coming back from LTA can opt out of the system for the safety of their fellows?


----------



## navymich (23 Jun 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Perhaps some sort of 'red flag' system so guys coming back from LTA can opt out of the system for the safety of their fellows?


Or, if a guy doesn't want to admit ahead of time that he may not be the best choice, then hopefully he has the conscience to say at the time of the transfusion (or preferably right before) "listen bud, I really want to help you, but I don't think you should be taking my blood."



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I'll take their share - I'd take life with a blood borne disease over death any day.


I've never been in the position to have to make that choice, and I don't know what I would say if I had to decide one way or the other.  Makes you really think though, and I'm curious what others here would choose and why.


----------

