Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    It's stupid, isn't it.

    And I definitely saw a bloke giving blood yesterday who has slept with other men. So he obviously lied on his medical form.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    She is right to stop you. And there's nothing stopping you from having it done as soon as your results come back. I can understand it being annoying though- i've been sent away twice from there after waiting around and taking time out for it
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nnnomi)
    Ha that's just annoying! There must be zillions of us who want to shed our blood for our nation (!) but can't because the stupid NHS are just being ridiculous.

    I mean the piercing thing... there's probably been one case EVER where someone got a blood infection because of a piercing, so now they have to put it on the form.
    And they wonder why there's a shortage of blood donations in the country :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    She was right
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Seeeeeriioouussly??
    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lizia)
    But people generally have STI tests because they think they've caught something. Most people don't take routine STI checks, although they probably should. So the fact that A felt the need to get a test would suggest in most cases that A has a reason to doubt they're clean, whereas B knows for sure. Most people aren't ****s that just don't bother with testing, however much the media would like to convince us of that.

    Also, sure they screen all the blood. But that's an expensive process, so it makes no sense to waste the time and money in screening blood that you already have suspicions might not be good. If the OP were to get an HIV test back in three weeks and it's positive, then the blood service would have wasted all that time and money on blood that can't be used. Whereas if they'd waited until the OP got her test results back, it would have saved the bother and expense.

    Screening also isn't infallable. So all they can do is take blood which they have reason to believe is already clean and disease free, then run it through the screening process and hope for the best. Then at least the blood is more likely to be clean and ready for use, compared to running a sample you already suspect is diseased, through a non-foolproof scanner and hoping for the best.
    Very true, but as I also put to someone or other last night, who's more likely to have an infection, 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? (And B could very easily be this kind of person.) Even though they may have gone years without a test? As you say, the screenings don't catch everything, so why take the risk?

    I agree that the NHS have every right to be strict and stop the OP as long as they introduce a regulation saying that any donator must have had a test within a set limit, like the last year (minimum). They allow people who have gone for years without having a test, this is a gap in the system, and if you have a gap in the system then what is the point in having a system at all? I'm only questioning the logic of being lenient with some people but strict with the OP and others. They should maintain a standard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the original poster. The NHS are lunching this new thing to get kids to go and get checked once a year, they were even thinking about making it into a national program, abit like the smear tests etc.
    Good for you for going to one, alot of people dont seem to bother or care about it.

    I agree that she was silly not to give you a test. ALL blood samples are checked for the usual things (hep, HIV etc) so just because you got checked, doesn't mean your any more likely to have something then Joe Bloggs before you, who couldn't be bothered getting a check up.

    The NHS makes such a big deal about giving blood, you wouldn't expect that.

    Don't let it put you off though. My friend was saved after a car accident by someone just like you.
    em x
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    She's right, you're an idiot for thinking she's wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lizia)
    But that would be an even bigger waste of money. If you force everyone to have a test before donating blood, then you're wasting money testing people who can say for sure that they don't have an STI. For example, I haven't ever had an STI test, but I know I'm completely clean. Even people who sleep around a lot but use protection can be fairly certain they're clean. Why would you waste money forcing people who can be almost certain they're clean to have a test?

    The system we have now is the most cost effective and sensible. Ask people if they're clean. If they can't give a definite yes, then make them wait until test results come back. The small minority like the OP who test for no reason, or who would lie and claim to be clean when they might not be, aren't large enough to change the system.
    It isn't wasting money, it's just maintaining a fair system, and what you're saying is a double standard. There could be people who 'know' they're clean, and then turn out to be wrong because they caught aids through a cut or however. On the other hand homosexuals are banned for life even though they may know they're clean and may well be right. If they introduce what I'm suggesting they could repeal that homosexual ban safely and gain hundreds of thousands more donators a year.

    Furthermore, what you're saying is to me wrong because when you have a blood test that is the exact same procedure as the screening that is conducted on all donated blood - donated blood isn't subjected to a cheaper, less stringent test. The NHS perform the exact same blood tests millions of times a year on patients, routine check-ups and blood donations, it would barely make a jot of a difference to the NHS workload if they stipulated that a donator must have had a test within a year, or 18 months, just for added protection. What's more, you were earlier saying that the OP was too much of a risk to donate, but on the other hand dictating - for patient safety - that everyone must have been tested within a year is being too cautious? And possible too expensive, even though they perform that exact same blood test on every drop that is donated anyway? I simply can't understand how you can be laissez-faire on some aspects but authoritarian on others and I'm afraid we're simply going to have to agree to disagree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    She was right to stop you. Dutty dutty gal.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.