My failed attempt at giving blood (and why I am so annoyed) Watch

nnnomi
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#21
(Original post by Dez)
Please grow up. You're not entitled to donate blood, that would rather defeat the point of the donation. The nurses are there to help you and there to ensure there's no potential problems with the blood they collect. If they refused your blood, it's because they had a good reason not to take it. Whether you agree with this reason or not is up to you, but it won't change their decision. If you think it's petty, feel free to train yourself up as a nurse, read all the health guidelines with regards to giving blood, and make the decision yourself.

I'm not saying I should be entitled to donate my blood. I'm saying that they refused me for a ridiculous reason. When I have my results (providing they are negative) I will go and donate blood then.
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#22
Report 8 years ago
#22
(Original post by nnnomi)
I think that it's fair enough that she stopped me because I'm waiting for test results, but a lot of other people donating blood will not have had the tests to show that they're clean. Why do they accept them then without proving their lack of disease?
You can do it as soon as you get the results. It just makes sense to wait. It's a choice between donating while knowing the results, and donating without knowing - why would you choose the second option?
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#23
Report 8 years ago
#23
(Original post by Lizia)
Yes, but if someone is waiting on test results, irt generally means they have no idea if they have a disease or not. Although they should do, not many people do take routine STI tests in my experience, so in a lot of cases the fact someone took a test makes a BIG question mark over a person.

The OP is an odd case, but I don't think refusing the odd person with unusual circumstances the chance to donate blood for two weeks is a bad enough thing to change the rules and risk others awaiting results infecting someone.
True, but what about the other people who were donating that day under what were much more lenient regulations? They may have had a test 2 years ago or whenever, but what use is a certificate saying you were clean 2 years ago?

I'm trying to think of a good way of putting it, but I'm tired and my brain's failing. So, if you'll forgive the lame cartoony analogy I'm about to give (it's the best I've got :p:) ... say you have 2 people, called A and B. They both had a blood test 18 months ago, although A has also had one last week (without the results back). Why can't A give blood but B can, 18 months have passed for both, and therefore both are equally likely to have caught something?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 8 years ago
#24
(Original post by nnnomi)
I'm not saying I should be entitled to donate my blood. I'm saying that they refused me for a ridiculous reason. When I have my results (providing they are negative) I will go and donate blood then.
It's not a ridiculous reason. It's a reason given in their rules and guidelines. It is there to prevent problems with potentially infected donors.

Blood donations are routinely screened for HIV, Hep-C and so on, but they can give a false negative. So if you suspect you have those diseases they can't take your blood. And regardless what you may think, having a STD check counts as suspicion.
0
reply
MF Doom
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 8 years ago
#25
Don't they check all blood that has been taken for disease anyway. So it doesn't matter if your friends lied or did have an infection. They wouldn't be so stupid to allow people to hand over their blood assuming they are being honest.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 8 years ago
#26
(Original post by MF Doom)
Don't they check all blood that has been taken for disease anyway. So it doesn't matter if your friends lied or did have an infection. They wouldn't be so stupid to allow people to hand over their blood assuming they are being honest.

I agree.
0
reply
Diminutive
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 8 years ago
#27
Of course people who have been tested are more likely to have the disease... why else would they get tested?

You were silly to have a full sexual health test if there's no way you could have anything. Wasting resources to have your samples checked. You say it was "routine" but its not like the clinic called you and say hey ho its time for your annual sex check up. You volunteered for the tests. Normally people who do that have a valid reason or suspicion. So yes people who suspect they may have picked up an STD are in general more likely to have an STD than those who don't.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 8 years ago
#28
(Original post by Dez)
It's not a ridiculous reason. It's a reason given in their rules and guidelines. It is there to prevent problems with potentially infected donors.

Blood donations are routinely screened for HIV, Hep-C and so on, but they can give a false negative. So if you suspect you have those diseases they can't take your blood. And regardless what you may think, having a STD check counts as suspicion.
But she would have been completely allowed to give blood if she hadn't had the test the other day? This makes no sense. Simply having a test doesn't have an influence on the outcome?

As I wrote to a person above, if you have 2 people, called A and B. They both had a blood test 18 months ago, although A has also had one last week (but without the results back). Why can't A give blood and yet B can? 18 months have passed for both, and therefore both are equally likely to have caught something?
0
reply
Disenchanted
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#29
Report 8 years ago
#29
I see her point, but it does seem a bit silly when all donated blood gets screened anyway.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 8 years ago
#30
(Original post by Craig_D)
But she would have been completely allowed to give blood if she hadn't had the test the other day? This makes no sense. Simply having a test doesn't have an influence on the outcome?

As I wrote to a person above, if you have 2 people, called A and B. They both had a blood test 18 months ago, although A has also had one last week (but without the results back). Why can't A give blood and yet B can? 18 months have passed for both, and therefore both are equally likely to have caught something?
Because A (presumably) suspects he/she has caught something, and so has gotten the test. B has not. What's so difficult to understand about this? :woo:
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#31
Report 8 years ago
#31
(Original post by Diminutive)
Of course people who have been tested are more likely to have the disease... why else would they get tested?

You were silly to have a full sexual health test if there's no way you could have anything. Wasting resources to have your samples checked. You say it was "routine" but its not like the clinic called you and say hey ho its time for your annual sex check up. You volunteered for the tests. Normally people who do that have a valid reason or suspicion. So yes people who suspect they may have picked up an STD are in general more likely to have an STD than those who don't.
It's not really silly, it's just being cautious (maybe even overly cautious!). But answer this, who's more likely to have an STD, a cautious person who has check-ups even when unnecessary, or a person who regularly sleeps around and sloppily goes several years without having one?

And yet, the one who didn't recently have the test is the one allowed to give blood? Even though they may have gone years without a test?
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 8 years ago
#32
(Original post by Dez)
Because A (presumably) suspects he/she has caught something, and so has gotten the test. B has not. What's so difficult to understand about this? :woo:
There's no need to be patronising just because we disagree on the logic of the situation. Strangely the post I just made seems relevant here:


Who's more likely to have an STD, a cautious person who has check-ups even when unnecessary, or a person who regularly sleeps around and sloppily goes several years without having one?

And yet, the one who didn't recently have the test is the one allowed to give blood? Even though they may have gone years without a test?
0
reply
Diminutive
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#33
Report 8 years ago
#33
Craig_D.... I think you are making an excellent point that perhaps all donors should have an STD test before being allowed to donate. =)

Though then again, they screen it afterwards. and I'm sure they've already considered this and the cost implications.

How is it hard to understand that normal people have suspicion of having something before getting tested?
0
reply
kamc
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 8 years ago
#34
It would be irresponsible of her to ignore the rules and allow you to donate. Its irrelevant whether your story is true, or whether she believed you, the rules are put in place for a reason.
0
reply
Skoji
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 8 years ago
#35
I'm not even allowed to give blood because I'm gay. I'm not HIV+ so where's the problem?
0
reply
Turin Turambar
Badges: 0
#36
Report 8 years ago
#36
Sod em. Let the people die if they want to be fussy.
0
reply
ma2k5
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#37
Report 8 years ago
#37
(Original post by nnnomi)
I think that it's fair enough that she stopped me because I'm waiting for test results, but a lot of other people donating blood will not have had the tests to show that they're clean. Why do they accept them then without proving their lack of disease?
I guess, someone who had just recently had a test, has more of a chance of having it then someone who hasn't - I mean, even though it was't in your case, there are promiscuous people out there who have to have regular check-ups due to their sexual history.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 8 years ago
#38
(Original post by Diminutive)
Craig_D.... I think you are making an excellent point that perhaps all donors should have an STD test before being allowed to donate. =)

Though then again, they screen it afterwards. and I'm sure they've already considered this and the cost implications.

How is it hard to understand that normal people have suspicion of having something before getting tested?
I think, maybe, there should be a rule saying you need to have a blood test if you haven't either given blood or had a test (with results :p:) within the 6 months. I admire that they are strict in these areas (I admit it helps the patients after all! :p:), but I just can't imagine why they are more lenient with the others giving blood without recent tests, if you're going to have a gap in your system then you may as well not have a system at all.

They do of course check every single donation of blood they get anyway though :dontknow: So I guess the cost perhaps can't be that high?
0
reply
ChaoticMaster
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#39
Report 8 years ago
#39
Its ridiculous. It implies that if your too stupid to get regular check ups when your sexually active then you must be clean. Pure idiocy.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#40
Report 8 years ago
#40
(Original post by Skoji)
I'm not even allowed to give blood because I'm gay. I'm not HIV+ so where's the problem?
Agree, that's an overly cautious (near to the point of offensive) rule. Of course, simply for being British we are permanently banned from donating in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, Czech Republic, Poland, and certain parts of Germany.

I didn't want to give it to them anyway. :huff:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a role model?

Yes - I know them personally (294)
26.09%
Yes - they're famous (286)
25.38%
No I don't (547)
48.54%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed