Why is There an Age Limit for Blood Donation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Age Blood Limit
AI Thread Summary
Blood donation age limits, typically set at 17, are primarily due to legal considerations rather than physiological differences in blood quality. Individuals under 17 are generally considered minors and cannot legally provide consent for donation, which involves inherent risks. This legal framework necessitates additional paperwork and oversight for younger donors. Exceptions exist for specific circumstances, such as autologous donations or when blood is needed for family members. The age limit reflects local laws and regulations, which can vary by state, with the Red Cross providing guidance on these policies.
Mk
Messages
2,039
Reaction score
4
I noticed that there are normally age limits to donating blood, 17 being the most common. Why must there be an age limit? Isn't a 16-year-old's blood just as good as a 17-year-old's? I can't imagine it would be that bad for a person's own health to donate blood. Is it because of responsibility? Like a kid might try and uh, donate more blood than he should? Seems like people normally care about themselves and don't donate when almost anybody could.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Mk said:
I noticed that there are normally age limits to donating blood, 17 being the most common. Why must there be an age limit? Isn't a 16-year-old's blood just as good as a 17-year-old's? I can't imagine it would be that bad for a person's own health to donate blood. Is it because of responsibility? Like a kid might try and uh, donate more blood than he should? Seems like people normally care about themselves and don't donate when almost anybody could.

Purely medical legal reasons, not physiologic as you stated.

Most states consider those below 17 minors and since blood donation is not without risk, would require a lot of paperwork etc. to have a teen donate. Blood banks make exceptions for those younger than 17 for very special occassions like harvesting blood for cancer reasons or autologous blood transfusions etc.
 
adrenaline said:
Most states consider those below 17 minors and since blood donation is not without risk, would require a lot of paperwork etc. to have a teen donate.
Why isn't it 18 then?
 
Short answer: legal reason is often a synonym for arbitrary choice. Arbitrary is a player in every field that local laws infringe upon.
 
This is the Red Cross' explanation for the age limit
In-Depth Discussion of Age and Blood Donation

Those younger than age 17 are almost always legal minors (not yet of the age of majority) who cannot give consent by themselves to donate blood. (Each state determines its own age of majority, which can be different for different activities.)

Persons under the age of 17 may, however, donate blood for their own use, in advance of scheduled surgery or in situations where their blood has special medical value for a particular patient such as a family member.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...

Similar threads

Back
Top