Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you give blood?

Announcements Posted on
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Data)
    My blood pressure is low (about 90/60) and I've never have a problem donating (and I've given over 50 times so I think that's fairly conclusive) My blood comes out very slowly and I have to keep clenching and unclenching my fist it going fast enough but they get the blood and I get the biscuits at the end. (I'm now fat and old but it was still fine when I was under 9 stone and my blood pressure was even lower).

    If you do feel faint they just raise your legs up for a bit and you'd be fine - no need to go to hospital for a transfusion. I used to make myself faint as a teenager (think yourself faint, stand up quickly...) to escape from boring church services and I'd recover as soon as I was helped outside to sit on a gravestone and recover.
    Thanks. I did think it was a bit over the top when my doctor was like 'You'd have to get the blood put back in just incase your heart stopped' when my blood pressure isn't even that low nor am I underweight but that did scare me a bit.

    Will be looking into giving blood now, certainly something I want to do. I'm sure the person taking my blood will tell me if something is wrong.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    .....
    Well good for you. Right wing eugenics - stay classy.

    :troll:
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    I'm not selfish... I'm completely selfless in this matter.

    I would happily give blood to people whose lives I think are worth continuing. People who work, people who contribute, people who do not abuse themselves and others around them, people who have potential, people who have ambitions, people who appreciate the life they have and put it to good use.

    It is the people who end up needing blood or organs because they're critically ill through drink or drugs, or anti-social fighting, etc, who are the selfish ones. Living lives that inevitably result in them needing to rely on the donations of others, and then pissing those donations against the wall just as soon as they're well enough to do so.

    Nobody here would be happy to donate their liver to an alcoholic just for him to destroy it with booze as soon as he's fit enough to be allowed back into a pub. So I don't see what's wrong with me having the same feelings about other organs and blood, and the same feelings about other types of wasters.
    You don't get to choose who your blood goes to and it shouldn't matter. Just because you have something life saving that someone else will need after you're dead it doesn't make you God and it doesn't give you the right to judge other people's lifestyles. A lot of blood goes to babies. In theory that baby could grow up to be a terrorist and go and blow up a nursery but think of all the babies who will grow up to be nice normal people. You don't need all of your blood and you won't need your organs when you're dead so as long as they are going to someone then you shouldn't be worrying about where they are going.

    Alcoholism is a real problem and a true alcoholic will always be an alcoholic. It isn't something they can easily help. One of my old school teachers told our class about her father's alcoholism and she said that telling him not to drink was like telling a cripple to get up and walk. If a manic depressive had suffered mental torture throughout their life and made a failed suicide attempt through overdose and needed a new liver as a result do you think they should have one? If you got to choose who your liver went to then who would you pick? The alcoholic or the suicidal person? What about someone who needs a new organ due to a condition such as anorexia?

    Most people on organ donor lists are on it because of self inflicted damage so how do you choose which self inflicted damage is morally ok and which isn't?

    If I got to choose then I'd rather my organs went to alcoholics and smokers than murderers and rapists.

    There doesn't appear to be an awful lot of information available regarding UK laws on this topic but in theory there's nothing to stop someone on death row in america from receiving organ transplants. That means not only would they be getting an organ that could be given to a law abiding citizen but the state would be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the procedure and then paying to have the same person executed. I'm willing to bet that if that's the case in the US then over here where we don't have the death penalty, convicted murderers probably have the same chance of receiving an organ as a good law abiding citizen would.

    https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...cf07c8daa9dc62

    If you're going to question who receives your organs then perhaps you should look beyond self inflicted damage and consider people who have willfully taken or destroyed the lives of other people.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clo-clo1)
    Thanks. I did think it was a bit over the top when my doctor was like 'You'd have to get the blood put back in just incase your heart stopped' when my blood pressure isn't even that low nor am I underweight but that did scare me a bit.

    Will be looking into giving blood now, certainly something I want to do. I'm sure the person taking my blood will tell me if something is wrong.
    If you're a woman under the age of 20 and you're below 10 stone 3 then you may not be able to give blood because of their new restrictions.

    Look up your height and weight on here:

    http://www.blood.co.uk/pdf/Female_donors_EBV_Chart.pdf

    and if you're in the shaded area then unfortunately they don't consider you to have enough blood.

    I'm only 5 ft 1 and a half and I'm only just about heavy enough to give blood now despite being a bit chunky for my personal liking lol. If I was at my ideal weight then apparently I wouldn't be able to give blood again until I'm 20. Seems kinda silly when considering I havn't grown an inch in height over the last 5 years and I've been giving blood regularly since I was 17. On 2 of the occasions I was about a stone lighter than I am now. Probably worth adding that I've never felt any different afterwards.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleone271)
    If you're a woman under the age of 20 and you're below 10 stone 3 then you may not be able to give blood because of their new restrictions.

    Look up your height and weight on here:

    http://www.blood.co.uk/pdf/Female_donors_EBV_Chart.pdf

    and if you're in the shaded area then unfortunately they don't consider you to have enough blood.

    I'm only 5 ft 1 and a half and I'm only just about heavy enough to give blood now despite being a bit chunky for my personal liking lol. If I was at my ideal weight then apparently I wouldn't be able to give blood again until I'm 20. Seems kinda silly when considering I havn't grown an inch in height over the last 5 years and I've been giving blood regularly since I was 17. On 2 of the occasions I was about a stone lighter than I am now. Probably worth adding that I've never felt any different afterwards.

    I also wouldnt be able to donate if I was my ideal weight , oh and under 20 yrs of age.

    Going on the average height of a woman at 5ft 5in you have to be at least 8st 3lb to donate blood if you are under 20.I wonder if they are going to see a drop in women under that age donating?.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Did it for the first time last year. I'm not squeamish of blood, but my sister hates the stuff! When she came back into the room and saw that bag of blood she almost fainted! :redface:

    Am going again this May for another biscuit and a sticker! :cookie:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleone271)
    You don't get to choose who your blood goes to and it shouldn't matter. Just because you have something life saving that someone else will need after you're dead it doesn't make you God and it doesn't give you the right to judge other people's lifestyles.
    I know I don't get to choose... and that's the problem.

    It doesn't make me God, no. But it does make me the owner of valuable and desirable goods, and as owner of those goods, I should reserve the right to exercise control over who I do business with concerning those goods.

    I have the right to judge whoever I like in whatever way I like... there's no limit on the extent to which I can judge a person or the conclusions I can reach.

    A lot of blood goes to babies. In theory that baby could grow up to be a terrorist and go and blow up a nursery but think of all the babies who will grow up to be nice normal people. You don't need all of your blood and you won't need your organs when you're dead so as long as they are going to someone then you shouldn't be worrying about where they are going.
    Well that's fair enough if people want to donate to babies... I don't. I want a return on my investment, and the best way of getting that is to have assurance that the recipient of my donation meets my criteria.

    I don't need them when I'm dead, but I'm a selfless person, and I'd like to think that I can exert whatever influence I have once I'm dead to improve the world and not worsen it.

    Alcoholism is a real problem and a true alcoholic will always be an alcoholic. It isn't something they can easily help. One of my old school teachers told our class about her father's alcoholism and she said that telling him not to drink was like telling a cripple to get up and walk.
    Well, that's just nonsense. An alcoholic chooses to get out of bed, go to the post office, cash in their giro and then take it for a spree in the off-licence. A cripple does not choose to have non-functional limbs.

    If an ailed person has ANY level of control over what they're doing, then they should be exploiting that control to its full extent to help end their ailment. I'm sure if a cripple did have some element of choice, they would opt to use it to their benefit and to their recovery, and not opt to use it to continue down the spiral of decadence.

    If a manic depressive had suffered mental torture throughout their life and made a failed suicide attempt through overdose and needed a new liver as a result do you think they should have one?
    Probably not. After all, they want to die, and they might well want to kill themselves again after they are discharged with a brand new liver. Seems like a horrific waste to me.

    Okay, it's a shame that they were born with a debilitating condition and that they suffered in life, but that doesn't mean it's okay to just waste vital organs on them.

    If you got to choose who your liver went to then who would you pick? The alcoholic or the suicidal person? What about someone who needs a new organ due to a condition such as anorexia?
    I'd pick somebody who needs a liver through no fault of their own... through no consequence of their own choices and actions, and somebody who can show me that they will cherish the sustained life that my liver will bring them, and use it to be a good, moral, contributing member of society.

    Most people on organ donor lists are on it because of self inflicted damage so how do you choose which self inflicted damage is morally ok and which isn't?
    None of it is.

    If I got to choose then I'd rather my organs went to alcoholics and smokers than murderers and rapists.
    Same?

    But I'd rather it didn't go to any of them and went to somebody who was neither.

    There doesn't appear to be an awful lot of information available regarding UK laws on this topic but in theory there's nothing to stop someone on death row in america from receiving organ transplants. That means not only would they be getting an organ that could be given to a law abiding citizen but the state would be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the procedure and then paying to have the same person executed. I'm willing to bet that if that's the case in the US then over here where we don't have the death penalty, convicted murderers probably have the same chance of receiving an organ as a good law abiding citizen would.
    Yes, and isn't that a disgusting notion? If people could exercise the right to choose their recipients, or choose the criteria that their recipients must meet, then despite the law, NO convicted criminals would be getting organs.

    https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...cf07c8daa9dc62

    If you're going to question who receives your organs then perhaps you should look beyond self inflicted damage and consider people who have willfully taken or destroyed the lives of other people.
    I think it is implied that they are included in my blacklist...

    No (or trivial) criminal record would definitely be a criterion to be met.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, since I don't think my blood would be that much use to other people due to my medical condition.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Last time I went I was told I didn't have any veins good enough to get enough blood from to be useful, and got sent away again. They said to try again in a year or so, so I'll go back next time they're here.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    I know I don't get to choose... and that's the problem.

    It doesn't make me God, no. But it does make me the owner of valuable and desirable goods, and as owner of those goods, I should reserve the right to exercise control over who I do business with concerning those goods.

    I have the right to judge whoever I like in whatever way I like... there's no limit on the extent to which I can judge a person or the conclusions I can reach.



    Well that's fair enough if people want to donate to babies... I don't. I want a return on my investment, and the best way of getting that is to have assurance that the recipient of my donation meets my criteria.

    I don't need them when I'm dead, but I'm a selfless person, and I'd like to think that I can exert whatever influence I have once I'm dead to improve the world and not worsen it.



    Well, that's just nonsense. An alcoholic chooses to get out of bed, go to the post office, cash in their giro and then take it for a spree in the off-licence. A cripple does not choose to have non-functional limbs.

    If an ailed person has ANY level of control over what they're doing, then they should be exploiting that control to its full extent to help end their ailment. I'm sure if a cripple did have some element of choice, they would opt to use it to their benefit and to their recovery, and not opt to use it to continue down the spiral of decadence.



    Probably not. After all, they want to die, and they might well want to kill themselves again after they are discharged with a brand new liver. Seems like a horrific waste to me.

    Okay, it's a shame that they were born with a debilitating condition and that they suffered in life, but that doesn't mean it's okay to just waste vital organs on them.



    I'd pick somebody who needs a liver through no fault of their own... through no consequence of their own choices and actions, and somebody who can show me that they will cherish the sustained life that my liver will bring them, and use it to be a good, moral, contributing member of society.



    None of it is.



    Same?

    But I'd rather it didn't go to any of them and went to somebody who was neither.



    Yes, and isn't that a disgusting notion? If people could exercise the right to choose their recipients, or choose the criteria that their recipients must meet, then despite the law, NO convicted criminals would be getting organs.



    I think it is implied that they are included in my blacklist...

    No (or trivial) criminal record would definitely be a criterion to be met.
    Well, if the ability to choose your recipient was ever made available, and you were to ever need a blood transfusion/organ transplant, I'd hope every single person has specified that they don't want to give anything to someone like you.

    You're coming across as selfish and you seem to have an inflated sense of superiority - I think there are quite a lot of people with this so-called "self-inflicted" damage who probably deserve to live a lot more than you do with this chip you've got on your shoulder.

    What about people who are in car accidents? They made the decision to get in the car that morning, surely their damage is self-inflicted and they don't deserve a donor. Or someone who gets stabbed and needs a new organ - they chose to go out, so it's their fault, right? Someone who's taken an accidental overdose of pills (I don't mean shoved 40 in their mouth, I mean over the years they've taken them at the correct rate for chronic pain, but they've built up and caused kidney damage)? They chose to take those pills, albeit sensibly, rather than just putting up with their pain, are they not deserving of your precious blood and organs?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    Well, if the ability to choose your recipient was ever made available, and you were to ever need a blood transfusion/organ transplant, I'd hope every single person has specified that they don't want to give anything to someone like you.
    I would relish that, for it would mean that people were excercising choice... which is something which must never be undervalued.

    You're coming across as selfish and you seem to have an inflated sense of superiority - I think there are quite a lot of people with this so-called "self-inflicted" damage who probably deserve to live a lot more than you do with this chip you've got on your shoulder.
    It's nothing to do with superiority, fool. It's simple economics. I am the owner of goods which are in sharp demand and shallow supply, and as such, I (should) have a large range of choice in who I do and do not do business with regarding those goods.

    We ALL have ideologies which marginalise certain people. If we have goods in sharp demand, then why shouldn't we be able to control the distribution of those goods as according to our ideologies?

    What about people who are in car accidents? They made the decision to get in the car that morning, surely their damage is self-inflicted and they don't deserve a donor.
    Don't be obtuse. The damage is not self-inflicated, the damage is an accident. That's why it's called a "car ACCIDENT". You don't choose to be in an accident, but you do choose to have vast quantities of alcohol in your liver.

    Or someone who gets stabbed and needs a new organ - they chose to go out, so it's their fault, right?
    Well, some of them do choose to be in situations which lead to getting stabbed. Hanging with the wrong crowd, partaking in gang wars and gang fights. If ther was any evidence that this was the case, such a person would be blacklisted for my organ.

    If they are simply an innocent victim of a barbaric attack, then they are not at fault.

    If that's your logic, I suppose you also think that rape victims have played a part in their ordeal, eh?

    Someone who's taken an accidental overdose of pills (I don't mean shoved 40 in their mouth, I mean over the years they've taken them at the correct rate for chronic pain, but they've built up and caused kidney damage)? They chose to take those pills, albeit sensibly, rather than just putting up with their pain, are they not deserving of your precious blood and organs?
    Another ridiculous example.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    I would relish that, for it would mean that people were excercising choice... which is something which must never be undervalued.

    It's nothing to do with superiority, fool. It's simple economics. I am the owner of goods which are in sharp demand and shallow supply, and as such, I (should) have a large range of choice in who I do and do not do business with regarding those goods.

    We ALL have ideologies which marginalise certain people. If we have goods in sharp demand, then why shouldn't we be able to control the distribution of those goods as according to our ideologies?
    Because you're comparing it to being like some kind of shop, where money is involved. This isn't somewhere that money is involved, this is people's lives, and you seem to like the superiority that comes with what you seem to think is "being the owner of goods which are in sharp demand" - there are plenty of other people who aren't as selfish and shallow as you are, and far superior to you, thankfully.



    Don't be obtuse. The damage is not self-inflicated, the damage is an accident. That's why it's called a "car ACCIDENT". You don't choose to be in an accident, but you do choose to have vast quantities of alcohol in your liver.
    You don't choose to become alcoholic. There is nothing wrong with going out now and then and having a few drinks, but it's all too easy and can be very hard to avoid becoming an alcoholic - especially if there are other factors such as home life involved. I wish we all lived such a sheltered, perfect life as you do.

    Well, some of them do choose to be in situations which lead to getting stabbed. Hanging with the wrong crowd, partaking in gang wars and gang fights. If ther was any evidence that this was the case, such a person would be blacklisted for my organ.

    If they are simply an innocent victim of a barbaric attack, then they are not at fault.
    Who decides whether they were in a gang or not though? What would you do if your organ went to some kid who was believed to be innocent but later turned out to have been in a gang when they were attacked - come back from the dead and try to take it back?

    If that's your logic, I suppose you also think that rape victims have played a part in their ordeal, eh?
    We're discussing your twisted logic here matey, not mine - you seem to think that people can be blamed for all these things when often, things just spiral out of control and there's not much anyone can do to stop it.



    Another ridiculous example.
    How? They chose to take the pills, just like (as you said) an alcoholic chooses to drink and a druggie chooses to take drugs.

    I think you need to get out of your ivory tower and get a taste of real life, to be honest - if you see life as something to be sold to the highest bidder, or something that only certain people whose lifestyle choices you agree with, and who haven't made mistakes in their lives, are allowed, then it seems you've had a very sheltered life, and you've never had to deal with any of these things.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I really want to but I can't because I am underweight. I have to wait until I'm 20.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    Because you're comparing it to being like some kind of shop, where money is involved. This isn't somewhere that money is involved, this is people's lives, and you seem to like the superiority that comes with what you seem to think is "being the owner of goods which are in sharp demand" - there are plenty of other people who aren't as selfish and shallow as you are, and far superior to you, thankfully.
    Well good for them. I'm not stopping them from donating, and under a system I would prefer, they would still be able to donate to any random individual.

    It's not about money, but it's still about utility. The world has no use for certain individuals, and they have no use for themselves, so they're not worth the organs on offer, whilst many thousands of other people are worth it.

    You don't choose to become alcoholic. There is nothing wrong with going out now and then and having a few drinks, but it's all too easy and can be very hard to avoid becoming an alcoholic - especially if there are other factors such as home life involved. I wish we all lived such a sheltered, perfect life as you do.
    Well of COURSE you choose. If you're aware, you can see the tell-tale signs, and unlike a cripple, you have control to STOP.

    Who decides whether they were in a gang or not though? What would you do if your organ went to some kid who was believed to be innocent but later turned out to have been in a gang when they were attacked - come back from the dead and try to take it back?
    Well that would be a tragic error, but I'm sure such errors would be few and far between, with my organ having a very high chance of not ending up in the wrong hands.

    I'd much rather have the choice and have things go wrong in error than to not have the choice in the first place. At least with choice, the chances of error are minimised.

    We're discussing your twisted logic here matey, not mine - you seem to think that people can be blamed for all these things when often, things just spiral out of control and there's not much anyone can do to stop it.
    Even if we put the issue of blame aside, it still doesn't make sense to donate to these people, because it is a waste.

    Whether you're an alcoholic or a gang member by choice or by uncontrollable environmental issues, you're STILL one, which means that any organ donated to you is STILL at risk of being as ruined.

    Okay, in your view it's not their FAULT that their transplant organ will be wasted, but does that really justify letting it go to such waste anyway? I think not.

    How? They chose to take the pills, just like (as you said) an alcoholic chooses to drink and a druggie chooses to take drugs.
    Because the pills are necessary to sustain their life in other ways. They take their pills out of self-preservation, whilst alcoholics continue to drink out of self-destruction.

    I think you need to get out of your ivory tower and get a taste of real life, to be honest - if you see life as something to be sold to the highest bidder, or something that only certain people whose lifestyle choices you agree with, and who haven't made mistakes in their lives, are allowed, then it seems you've had a very sheltered life, and you've never had to deal with any of these things.
    Oh piss off. Just because my opinion differs from yours, then it MUST be borne of inexperienced and naivity? THAT is an ivory tower, my friend... anybody whose opinion differs from mine is clearly less experienced and weathered than I am.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I have to say, the little badge I got from my Bronze donation is pretty cool
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    Well good for them. I'm not stopping them from donating, and under a system I would prefer, they would still be able to donate to any random individual.

    It's not about money, but it's still about utility. The world has no use for certain individuals, and they have no use for themselves, so they're not worth the organs on offer, whilst many thousands of other people are worth it.
    People aren't about "use", people are people - they often have children who need them, or maybe they care for their elderly people, or do something important for their community. Maybe you mean YOU have no use for certain individuals, and so you think their lives are a waste of time.

    Well of COURSE you choose. If you're aware, you can see the tell-tale signs, and unlike a cripple, you have control to STOP.
    But you don't seem to understand that often, people AREN'T aware, and they DON'T see the tell-tale signs until long afterwards when a friend or family member or doctor points it out to them. If everybody could see "Ooh I'm becoming an alcoholic", there would be far fewer alcoholics!

    Well that would be a tragic error, but I'm sure such errors would be few and far between, with my organ having a very high chance of not ending up in the wrong hands.

    I'd much rather have the choice and have things go wrong in error than to not have the choice in the first place. At least with choice, the chances of error are minimised.
    Another selfish view. It's all about what you want again. What about if the error goes the other way - you choose not to give to gang members, a boy is denied an organ and dies because of it, and then it transpires he's not a gang member. Your organ could've saved him, but didn't because you're so adamant that people never change.


    Even if we put the issue of blame aside, it still doesn't make sense to donate to these people, because it is a waste.

    Whether you're an alcoholic or a gang member by choice or by uncontrollable environmental issues, you're STILL one, which means that any organ donated to you is STILL at risk of being as ruined.
    A waste of what, exactly? You seem to have forgotten that people can change - people can wake up from their transplant operation or transfusion and realize that they've been wasting their life, and make the decision to change. Yes, there's a chance it wouldn't happen, but why be spiteful and deny all people who've made mistakes another chance at life, because they "might" go back to normal. But they "might" not! Refusing to give for that reason isn't erring on the side of caution, it's spite.

    Okay, in your view it's not their FAULT that their transplant organ will be wasted, but does that really justify letting it go to such waste anyway? I think not.
    How do you know it'll be wasted? And also, why do you care, you'll be dead?


    Because the pills are necessary to sustain their life in other ways. They take their pills out of self-preservation, whilst alcoholics continue to drink out of self-destruction.
    What about the ones who see alcohol as self-preservation - it's the only thing that keeps them happy due to a difficult home life/childhood. And how about the ones who've become addicted to prescription drugs? They're on the road to self-destruction, are they worthy of your "precious goods" (read - a healthy organ that most people in the country are in possession of)

    Oh piss off. Just because my opinion differs from yours, then it MUST be borne of inexperienced and naivity? THAT is an ivory tower, my friend... anybody whose opinion differs from mine is clearly less experienced and weathered than I am.
    It's not because your opinion differs from mine, it's because you're seeing everything in black and white - ALL alcholics and drug users and gangs are that way because they WANT to be, and they will NEVER change and as such, they aren't deserving of life. If someone you loved was in this situation, I reckon you'd change your mind - which is why I said you're in an ivory tower.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TattyBoJangles)
    Shock caused by loss of body fluids.

    Basically, I went very pale and clammy soon after giving blood. I was sat on the floor by someone, who took my pulse etc. and apparently it was very weak & thready.
    I then tried to stand up when they turned their back and promptly fell to the floor. Had heart palpitations, heart rate was tachycardic, felt sick and found it hard to control my breathing (was basically hyperventilating). And then collapsed.
    Definitely not something I wish to repeat. It was really rather scary - and it happened to me again the next day :/

    Made up for not being able to give blood by signing up to be an organ donor.

    That's just the way I was when I took my blood test.
    I went as pale as a sheet of paper and was too ill to stand upright. It was even scarier when people around me got astonished as they looked at me. I had to lie down until I got back on my feet.
    After that day, my doctor told me that I shouldn't try to give blood.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nope, because I live in S. Korea and you're not allowed to give blood as a foreigner And I didn't before because I was under 50kg and therefore not allowed to in the UK before...
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missorson)
    That's just the way I was when I took my blood test.
    I went as pale as a sheet of paper and was too ill to stand upright. It was even scarier when people around me got astonished as they looked at me. I had to lie down until I got back on my feet.
    After that day, my doctor told me that I shouldn't try to give blood.

    It's a shame I can't, as I'm of some rare blood type. My doctor said, "As much as the NHSBT would love people of your blood type to donate more.. don't do it again."
    I have good veins, too. The nurse's face lit up when she saw them :lol:

    Anyway, looking at the new regulations, I don't think I'd be eligible even if I hadn't been banned from giving blood.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I received an email a few days ago telling me about the new restrictions.

    I'm not sure whether or not I meet the new criteria. I don't know exactly how tall I am and I haven't weighed myself in about 4 years. I was planning on donating on Tuesday...should I just turn up anyway and see what they think?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 2, 2012
New on TSR

Student in a Million awards

All the results from our prize-giving night

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered Chat threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.