Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    To those people who would donate but are scared of needles - I understand and sympathise, I really do. I can't stand needles, almost to the point of phobia. But sometimes, it's important to do things that you know are hard for you, for what you know is the greater good. I've donated around ten times, and still, every time, I have to warn the nurse that I'm a big baby, every time, I wince when the needle goes in, and every time, I lie there thinking that it's pretty uncomfortable. But as I sit there enjoying the free biscuits afterwards, I have to admit that, actually, it was no big deal. At the very worse, it was ten minutes of mild discomfort. Often, it's not even that.

    And just possibly, it's a life saved. There aren't many occasions where the average person has a genuine opportunity to save someone's life. We get the chance two to three times a year. I think that's a bit special, actually.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    I said it earlier in the thread, I'll say it again: Do you honestly think that doctors just transfuse patients willy nilly? :p: There's a shortage of blood and transfusions carry various inherent risks; obviously they only do it when it's necessary.
    :p: I do realise that but it appears their version of necessary is different to mine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think giving blood is an entirely admirable thing to do, and I wish more people would do it. By giving blood you really could save someone's life.

    I have given blood several times, though not for a while because I need to get round to telling the Blood Service that I no longer work where I used to work (it was much more convenient to give blood there rather than where I live). This thread has given me the impetus to update my details.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phobia27)
    How long have you had that tattoo? You can give blood if you haven't had a tattoo done within in last 6 months.
    Really? :shock: I got it well over a year ago!! Wow if this is true then that's fantastic, never knew this...thanks
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    Can't donate for several reasons, but I would were I able to. As for receiving one, of course I would. I don't see why any rational person wouldn't.

    Whoever said they'd accept one only if it was the last resort, do you really think that doctors just give out transfusions willy nilly? :lolwut:
    My mother, when in labour with me, was offered a blood transfusion. She asked if she needed it; they said no.

    She didn't take it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Stefular)
    Lets be honest here guys, pretty much every person here would accept both blood and organs if they needed it, you would want your family to accept them, you would call them crazy if they didn't. On that basis, every single person should be on the Organ Donation register and donate blood regularly don't ya think?
    And to all those people saying it's too much effort, you guys are harsh, it's about an hour once every 3/4 months? You get a free cuppa splosh and a biscuit, you sit there and have a gossip for a while. What is hard?? You're possibly saving THREE peoples lives, that could be you one day, how would you feel if you needed blood and someone said, yeahh sorry, I can't be bothered, i'm watching Eastenders. Don't just agree with this, prove it.
    http://www.blood.co.uk/
    http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/default.jsp
    Every single person?

    Well, forgive me, it's actually the medical people that say I can't donate, not me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachlala14)
    Well sorry I've touched your humanist nerve, but without sounding imprudent, I am far from selfish or irrational. You don't know me or my circumstances well enough to make such a sweeping observation.
    I fail to see the rationality in choosing certain death over life. And it's certainly selfish to not donate organs; you're putting your wishes and desires over the needs of other people. I'm not saying you should go against your desires, just saying you can't deny that it's selfish.

    Its at the doctors discretion as to how much pain medication they get and their illness may determine how effective opioids are, but patients are often given less medication than they need as doctors have failed to carry out appropriate diagnostic testing or they withhold stronger medication from the patient as they feel to administer this would be "giving up".
    Maybe you'd like to read this article - http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000201/755.html - very informative. It states "The World Health Organization has developed guidelines for the relief of chronic pain. Studies have shown that by following these guidelines, physicians can achieve adequate pain control in nearly 90 percent of patients. So, while I feel sympathy for those people that you've witnessed in extreme pain, they are very much in the minority.
    As for the lucidity, some people favour that and in my opinion, it's a much nicer way to pass on.
    I'm well aware of the guidelines on palliative care. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't completely take away the pain, nor does it make it a comfortable or pleasant experience. Two of my grandparents died in hospital, one from very advanced cancer and the other from multiple organ failure. Both of them were given the maximum amount of analgesia, and yet they were both in a lot of discomfort when they passed. It was not peaceful. Even the latter grandparent I mentioned, who was actually (deliberately) given too much fentanyl as an act of mercy by the doctor at the family's insistence was still in pain right to the very end.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I feel sorry for the blood service on the "a man who has had sex with another man" issue. Here is what they have to say about it: http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I can't, my blood is a bit too gay apparently. I would gladly receive some pure heterosexual blood in the event of an accident.
    I don't think the exemption is based on prejudice, and it isn't about being gay. If a heterosexual (for some reason) had engaged in sex with another man he too would be prohibited .

    I think that idea is that even though the restriction is inappropriate for the majority of MSM individuals (and I can appreciate their frustration), on a demographic level it is ultimately beneficial to the service. Because men who have had sex with other men are disproportionately affected by HIV (an example).
    Apparently, if it were lifted, there would be an unacceptably high rise in the transmission of HIV through blood transfusions.

    The website says:
    Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%.
    Whilst you might debate the balance of cost and benefit of such a decision I don't think it is homophobic. The same black and white decisions are made about many groups that might donate blood, at the cost of their potential donations also.
    If the MSM group were not at such an increased risk of HIV, then there would be no prohibition.

    I'm not massively informed, so maybe there is some side to the argument I'm not seeing. If someone could provide some evidence/source/something that actually shows that the blood service's research is flawed/biased it would be interesting (and if convincing enough I would certainly join you in your outrage).

    I hope you don't think I am homophobic I believe that if I were gay myself, I would say the same thing, but you'll have to take my word for it.

    As much as anyone else, I would love to see an evidence-based change in the legislation, but not a pressure-based change at the expense of blood recipients.

    (Original post by JGR)
    However, as I've been involved with the menfolk, I'm no longer eligible, until such a time as the rules are changed.
    The blood service are always reassessing their evidence, you never know it might happen!


    As for OP: I cannot donate blood, I am too midgeted. At least if anyone gay or otherwise really hates me for my post they can take pleasure in visualising my being trapped in a box slightly too high for me to escape from
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    I feel sorry for the blood service on the "a man who has had sex with another man" issue. Here is what they have to say about it: http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/



    I don't think the exemption is based on prejudice, and it isn't about being gay. If a heterosexual (for some reason) had engaged in sex with another man he too would be prohibited .

    I think that idea is that even though the restriction is inappropriate for the majority of MSM individuals (and I can appreciate their frustration), on a demographic level it is ultimately beneficial to the service. Because men who have had sex with other men are disproportionately affected by HIV (an example).
    Apparently, if it were lifted, there would be an unacceptably high rise in the transmission of HIV through blood transfusions.

    The website says:


    Whilst you might debate the balance of cost and benefit of such a decision I don't think it is homophobic. The same black and white decisions are made about many groups that might donate blood, at the cost of their potential donations also.
    If the MSM group were not at such an increased risk of HIV, then there would be no prohibition.

    I'm not massively informed, so maybe there is some side to the argument I'm not seeing. If someone could provide some evidence/source/something that actually shows that the blood service's research is flawed/biased it would be interesting (and if convincing enough I would certainly join you in your outrage).

    I hope you don't think I am homophobic I believe that if I were gay myself, I would say the same thing, but you'll have to take my word for it.

    As much as anyone else, I would love to see an evidence-based change in the legislation, but not a pressure-based change at the expense of blood recipients.



    The blood service are always reassessing their evidence, you never know it might happen!


    As for OP: I cannot donate blood, I am too midgeted. At least if anyone gay or otherwise really hates me for my post they can take pleasure in visualising my being trapped in a box slightly too high for me to escape from
    It is a relic of prejudiced times when AIDS was seen as the gay disease. If a man sucks off a man who is wearing a condom, he is never allowed to give blood. If a man has sex with a woman who is definitely HIV positive, he just has to wait a year before giving blood. Tell me how that makes sense.
    • PS Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pangol)
    To those people who would donate but are scared of needles - I understand and sympathise, I really do. I can't stand needles, almost to the point of phobia. But sometimes, it's important to do things that you know are hard for you, for what you know is the greater good. I've donated around ten times, and still, every time, I have to warn the nurse that I'm a big baby, every time, I wince when the needle goes in, and every time, I lie there thinking that it's pretty uncomfortable. But as I sit there enjoying the free biscuits afterwards, I have to admit that, actually, it was no big deal. At the very worse, it was ten minutes of mild discomfort. Often, it's not even that.

    And just possibly, it's a life saved. There aren't many occasions where the average person has a genuine opportunity to save someone's life. We get the chance two to three times a year. I think that's a bit special, actually.
    Completely agree. I once hit an 8th month pregnant nurse as she went to give me my hep B injection...that's how phobic of needles I am. Yet I still went and gave blood. When I got there, I told the nurse that I'm highly needle phobic. She then went and told the other nurses, I assume they decided to put me with someone who is good with dealing with distracting people, because she just chattered away with me while putting needle in, it was a few seconds of pain but once in, I couldn't even feel it! As soon as I can next donate, I'm donating again. You can get over any phobia when you realise you are saving lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    I fail to see the rationality in choosing certain death over life. And it's certainly selfish to not donate organs; you're putting your wishes and desires over the needs of other people. I'm not saying you should go against your desires, just saying you can't deny that it's selfish.
    It's not like I think 'Oh, I must do such and such before I die" - I live my life fully and I believe that whether you live or you die, it's meant to be! It's extremely easy for you sit on TSR on the other side of the British Isles and say I'm egocentric just because I don't believe in organ donation! There's plenty of other ways I can help people other than organ donation which are just as pro-active.


    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    I'm well aware of the guidelines on palliative care. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't completely take away the pain, nor does it make it a comfortable or pleasant experience. Two of my grandparents died in hospital, one from very advanced cancer and the other from multiple organ failure. Both of them were given the maximum amount of analgesia, and yet they were both in a lot of discomfort when they passed. It was not peaceful. Even the latter grandparent I mentioned, who was actually (deliberately) given too much fentanyl as an act of mercy by the doctor at the family's insistence was still in pain right to the very end.
    If it doesn't completely take away the pain or make it a comfortable experience, quite frankly I would look into changing doctors. It's not supposed to be that way.
    I'm sorry for the loss of your grandparents. 3 out of my six aunts/uncles had secondary cancers and it's a hard one to witness, but they passed away without pain and in comfort, with my whole family around them.
    However, my grandparents have Alzheimers and Parkinsons and I more than often end up caring for them due to my parents work commitments - on hindsight, this is a much worse and often more prolonged death than cancer or organ failure. They can be very distressed and in a lot of discomfort and this can happen for years (in their case, my granny has had hers for about 2 years now and the doctor says she may end up living for another 5-10 years).
    Be grateful for small mercies is all I can say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would love to give blood, the only thing holding my back my anaemic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i cant stand needles but i guess i really should. dont think im old enough?
    i hopefully will in the future, not sure how i would feel receiving it...
    • PS Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luuucyx)
    i cant stand needles but i guess i really should. dont think im old enough?
    i hopefully will in the future, not sure how i would feel receiving it...
    You're 17, you can donate
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greeneyedgirl)
    You're 17, you can donate
    ooo can i?
    i might look into that actually! ill probably faint but yehh
    thankss
    • PS Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luuucyx)
    ooo can i?
    i might look into that actually! ill probably faint but yehh
    thankss
    If I can manage, you can

    Just make sure to eat and drink before hand and you'll be fine! You're in very good hands after all
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've done it before and I'll do it again. I'd be perfectly willing to accept a blood transfusion if necessary, although of course I hope I'm never in the situation of needing one. I disagree with the JW arguments against them and see no reason to object.

    I know people who refuse to donate blood because of the laws against gay donations, and while I feel the laws are wrong, and should be changed, I don't think not donating is the way to change this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I MUST give blood. I've been meaning to for a few months now. It's definitely my no. 1 New Year's resolution.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Started giving blood 2 days after I turned 17.

    Changed to platelet donation when I was 19. Takes longer - about 75 minutes on the whirryclunky machine - and I have to travel 45 minutes instead of 15, but you get a free sandwich.

    And yes, I'd have no qualms about accepting a transfusion either of whole blood, or any of its constituent parts.

    I also worked briefly in a testing/processing laboratory for the blood service. I have to say, given the lab I worked in is one that supplies half of London and has the emergency supplies in case of a crisis (explosion, building collapse, whatever) in the capital, the blood stocks are FRIGHTENINGLY low.

    Had trouble donating lately though - they've had to abort my last 3 donations because my blood pressure was too high, yet every time the doctor checks it it's absolutely fine. Silly circulatory system, playing tricks on me. Might get my ears pierced in the meantime though, I've been putting that off for years because it would mean not being able to donate for 6 months.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There was an appeal for asians to donate because of the higher chance of possessing rare blood types so I was going to until I saw the huge needle connected to that pumping action thing, i thought it was a standard syringe they use to take blood not some vacuum.

    I urge others to think things through before agreeing to this.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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

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