Donating blood at 16
State Rep. Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, is preparing a bill for possible introduction that would allow 16-year-olds to give blood. The current minimum age in North Carolina is 17.
The American Red Cross supports a minimum age of 16, which is permitted in 24 states. In those states, 16-year-olds account for 2.5 percent of blood donations, an ARC staffer told me.
In our area, high school blood drives are popular. The Greensboro ARC chapter holds around 16 each year and collects about 1,000 units of blood. Production certainly would increase if 16-year-olds were eligible.
What about the safey issue? I couldn't find any sort of report to distinguish 16-year-olds from 17-year-olds on that score, but there is a recent study about young donors that produced some important findings.
Here's a news release, dated May 20, from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The lead:
"Sixteen- and 17-year olds who donate blood are significantly more likely to experience donation-related complications such as fainting and bruising than older blood donors, according to a study in the May 21 issue of JAMA."
More detail:
"Complications (such as loss of consciousness, bruising) occurred after 10.7 percent of donations by 16- and 17-year-olds, 8.3 percent of donations by 18- and 19-year-olds, and 2.8 percent by donors age 20 years or older. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds were significantly more likely to experience any loss of consciousness and major complications than 18- and 19-year-old donors or donors age 20 years or older. Injuries related to fainting were uncommon (86 events among 16- and 17-year-old donors, 5.9 events per 10,000 blood collections), but were 2.5 times more common among 16- and 17-year-old donors compared with 18- and 19-year-olds, and 14 times more likely compared with donors age 20 years or older. Almost half of all injuries occurred in 16- and 17- year-old donors; and many episodes (such as those involving concussion, laceration requiring stitches, dental injuries, broken jaw) were severe enough to require outside medical care."
Access to the full article requires registration.
An abstract is here.
Red Cross people I spoke with, in Greensboro and Washington, stressed that proper preparation is important to avoid complications when giving blood. This is especially true for young donors. It's common sense, really: Get a good night's sleep, eat well, drink plenty of fluids.
Blood services staff also have to keep a close eye on donors.
Many young people are excellent blood donors, and giving them an early start can make them lifetime donors. Think of the lives they can save if they give gallons of blood over the decades.
But the JAMA report adds a caution: Young donors who have a negative experience the first time are much less likely to come back a year later. So it's important to reduce the risk of a poor reaction that first time.
What's your opinion about 16-year-olds giving blood? Are they ready, or still too young?
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
16-year-olds are definately ready to donate blood. It's not like they are being forced to give blood, so it would have to be their decision. They are old enough to decide if they are ready to give blood or not themselves. How are we supposed to make a difference if we aren't allowed to?
Posted on July 12, 2008 3:18 PM