BACKGROUND Ageing European populations put pressure on national blood supplies, increasing the need for blood and donor base rejuvenation. Therefore, we investigate how European countries' blood donor populations differ and how they have evolved over the last 2 decades. Previous comparative research, based on 1994 Eurobarometer data, indicate that the typical donor is an educated, middle‐aged, white, married male. Other sociodemographic and socioeconomic correlates, such as employment status and type of community, are less clear. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Multilevel analyses are performed on repeated cross‐level data from the Eurobarometer (waves 1994, 2002, 2009, and 2014) to compare information on “ever having donated” across sociodemographic categories, countries, and periods. RESULTS There are consistent but moderate country and period differences. The donor population rose to become largest in most countries by 2009, and stabilized thereafter. Over the studied period, donors were more likely to be higher educated, married men. Nevertheless, changes across time in donor profiles within countries did occur. Women were less likely to donate blood, especially in Southern and Eastern Europe, but this gender gap has declined. Furthermore, educational attainment seems more relevant for women, although, more recently, to a lesser extent. CONCLUSION Although there is a promising trend in which women, young people, and students are increasingly likely to donate, more attention is needed to reach the unemployed and the low to medium educated. Because the unemployed may lack structural opportunities to donate, and the low to medium educated may lack relevant knowledge on blood donation necessity, we recommend providing practical opportunities and information on the necessity of blood donation.

Although European blood collection organizations are currently obtaining sufficient and safe blood from the majority population, they report having difficulty recruiting first and second-generation immigrants from non-European countries. Most existing studies on these underrepresented groups, who have been coined the “ missing minorities” in blood donation, have adopted an instrumental approach that focuses on the development of targeted recruitment strategies to overcome specific barriers to donation faced by members of these minorities. Although this approach does offer several short-term benefits, our central argument is that it is one-sided in its questioning of the non-participation of ethnic minorities. The literature currently lacks research on how the blood procurement system is failing to include minorities. Drawing on recent social theory, we seek a broader sociological understanding of minority under-representation in blood donor populations by shifting the analytic focus toward a critical examination of the main pillars of the procurement system within the European context. This paper advances a novel analytical framework based on two general propositions. First, we apply the literature on “citizenship regimes” to argue that blood donation is part of one specific institutionalization of citizenship and solidarity. We then reconceptualize the “problem” of missing minorities in European blood donation as an application for social change, suggesting avenues related to blood collection as a way of renegotiating minority-majority relations of solidarity.

Since British sociologist Titmuss authoritatively conceived blood donation as an altruistic ‘gift relationship’, blood establishments have adopted blood’s highly symbolic status as a core professional belief. However, important developments since the 1970s have resulted in blood’s bio-objectification, making blood a renewed object of concern. Because different versions of this bio-object are simultaneously present and interfere with one another, we ask how the organization renders this multiplicity workable? Studying how ontological versions are enacted in a specific blood establishment and how the organizational model of a blood establishment functions as a mode of coordination, we develop a praxiographic appreciation of blood in the context of a specific Belgian blood establishment. We show how the organizational mode of coordination allocates versions of blood in specific departments along functional and chronological dimensions. Blood remains the object of a gift relationship but is accompanied by blood’s enactment and representation as the object of suspicion, management, research/biology, and a blood economy. Furthermore, the organizational mode of coordination also allocates personalized and depersonalized enactments according to the level of contact with the donor population. This reflects a third dimension: (de)personalization of blood. Whereas the organizational mode of coordination is successful in rendering blood’s multiplicity workable, at times, it causes suboptimal practices. Moreover, we showed how sometimes a focus on intra-departmental modes of coordination is necessary to understand how blood’s multiplicity complicates the practices of the blood establishment.

No abstract

In Belgium and the Netherlands, the detention and deportation of illegalised migrant families with underage children has recently caused public controversy, resulting in the eruption of antideportation protests. This controversy is rooted in the unresolved tension for liberal states to protect children's rights on the one hand, while limiting 'unwanted migration' on the other. Previous literature documents protest reactions to efforts to deport families with underage children, as well as general state tactics to legitimize such coercion. This paper instead centres the state's legitimation work in response to societal protest and draws on publicly available material on two recent controversies: the Belgian debate on family detention and the determination of the child pardon in the Netherlands. For Belgium we highlight that the government frames detention as the 'ultimate measure', used only when less restrictive measures 'failed'. For the Netherlands we show how the government reallocates political responsibility from elected officials to bureaucrats. Both strategies transform what is essentially a moral-political debate into a web of administrative procedures and discussions on legal conditions. The Belgian and Dutch governments thus invisibilize moral conflict by drawing it outside the realm of democratic politics, to the backstage of bureaucratic administration.