A transfusion medicine physician at a University Hospital in Istanbul wonders about the eligibility of a prospective blood donor who lost one of his kidneys as a consequence of abdominal trauma. The prospective donor denied having received any transfusions in association with the trauma or kidney resection. However, even if the prospective donor was unaware of having received a transfusion, the trauma and kidney loss took place more than one year ago. The inquiring physician wonders if others would accept this individual with one kidney as a blood donor.

A transfusion medicine in the United States comments that a prospective blood donor is deferred for at least one year after receiving a blood transfusion. Once that year is over, the transfused individual can again be eligible, provided no other reason exists to defer them as a blood donor. In his opinion, having only one kidney is not a sufficient reason to defer a prospective donor, provided the individual is in otherwise good health, their one remaining kidney is functioning normally, and no other health reason is present to defer the donor.

The following comments have been received.

ADDENDA Apr 2, 2005

1. A transfusion medicine physician in Sacramento reports that at her blood center, if a prospective donor had lost a kidney secondary to trauma, they would let the individual donate, so long as the individual met all the eligibility criteria and was healthy.

2. A transfusion medicine physician in California with extensive experience reports that he would accept a person who lost a kidney to trauma more than a year prior ago as a blood donor, provided the person met all other donor eligibility criteria. He makes the following very important point: "Certainly, one can do fine with one kidney and there should be no effect on a donated unit. Besides, if we rejected such people as blood donors just for this reason, would we not be sending the wrong message to living related donors who are generous enough to do this? We try to tell them that they can spare a kidney and live essentially normal lives with negligible risk, after going through the operation; to now deny them as blood donors would imply that there is something now wrong with them!"

ADDENDA Apr 8, 2005

3. A transfusion medicine colleague at a hospital-based donor center in Southern California reports that her donor center would accept an otherwise healthy donor who lost a kidney due to trauma more than a year ago, provided the donor had no medical issue causing their disqualification. Her comment is directed to the phrase "to deny them as blood donors would imply there is something now wrong with them" which appears in posting #2. In her opinion, within the e-Network Forum this comment is innocuous, but she hopes our message to the lay community reflects our conservative concern for safety rather than any commentary on an individual donor. She laments saying that maybe she has deferred too many British vegetarians.

Please submit comments to the e-Network Forum.

Ira A. Shulman, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Editor & Moderator