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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OGC)
    It's painless and a mild inconvenience; it saves lives.
    I've got history of severe anaemia, and I faint at the sight of blood. Blood tests are difficult for me, so giving blood would not be a sensible option!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Because they wont let me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I had hepatitis in September
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't have blood.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choccielatte)
    I've got history of severe anaemia, and I faint at the sight of blood. Blood tests are difficult for me, so giving blood would not be a sensible option!
    Alright chill out! :p: He wasn't have a go or nothing....

    I'll give you some blood if you want then you can give it to the Blood Bank ok?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've given blood 4 times now. More people should do it - it really isn't that bad!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    i'm not allowed because of a heart murmur i had as a child
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Don't think I weigh enough.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Just because I remembered the horrifying ads doesn't mean I was incentivized to give blood as a result though :confused: In fact, I was somewhat put off, because I was just disgusted. I mean, they were effective at first, and then after months upon months of every 5 minutes hearing stuff like, "This child will die if you don't give blood", you were just sickened. Many people I know expressed the same sentiment. I'm sure if we conducted a survey we'd find similar responses.
    If you feel that way then fine. But until such a survey is conducted on a large and impartial enough scale to prove you correct I'm going to continue going with the only statistics we have available, i.e. that blood and organ donation frequency is rising.

    The annecdotal evidence of your friends would be quite different to the annecdotal evidence of mine. Perhaps because we associate with different types of people, but that statistics of rising donations are in my favour too.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    The adverts would appear to be working because the advertising campaign for blood donation andthings is HUGE at the moment, not necessarily because the content is effective. We have no idea how effective an advertising campaign on the same scale but featuring more positive content would be as of yet. Actually, though, the NHS would appear to agree with me, because I've seen some of their more recent blood donation ads, and they're much more positive and encouraging. We'll see how effective those are.
    No the NHS is still agreeing with me as it uses both. I'm not arguing that we should exclusively use negative images to promote donation but that we should use a combination of positive and negative ones, as the NHS already does.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    You seem to think that some kind of success so far indicates this method will keep on working.
    And when it stops working I would whole-heartedly support the NHS in changing the emphasis. But as it is thus far successful and is continuing to be so, I think the evidence is still with the NHS using a combination of methods to encourage donation.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    You can't keep leaking peoples empathy dry ad infinitum. The problem is that the guilt-tripping ads have been successful for a while, but ALL charitable causes are advertising on an unparalleled scale, have all been trying to spark people's guilt and/or other negative emotions in these ads. People can't really handle all those negative emotions on their shoulders after a while- they just because completely desensitised.
    Sure, that's why companies renew their adverts every few months. Including the NHS.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    It's hard to feel compassionate about the world's suffering
    It's harder still if it's not put on a plate in front of you, metaphorically speaking. I mean case in point if you were just told their was an earthquake in Haiti do you immediately realise the scale of what has happened their? I mean the pictures and recordings of the disaster themselves barely do the suffering people go through justice. Without these do you really think it possible to even begin to feel compassion?

    To show a positive change you need to show something which it changes from.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    and this is a very observable effect- people are no longer feeling that it's worth trying to alleviate the world's suffering.
    That's just plain not true. The mere existance of the charities you yourself go on to appeal to prove this point amply.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    The current generation of philanthropists, growing up in the 60s and 70s and around that time, grew up with little knowledge of all the suffering in the world. Obviously when they were introduced to these concepts, they were shocked and inspired to donate to charity. The next generation of philanthropists will have grown up completely immersed in this knowledge, being witness to the squalor in the world every few minutes or so thanks to TV. I don't expect these same kind of advert will have any effect on them if they've been around them their whole life.
    Unless you're in your 40s or 50s you've been around them your whole life. They've clearly had an affect on you. You found it abhorrent that such methods were being used. Not the desired effect granted (but again we have rising numbers of donors to prove that by and large the right effect is being had) but an effect none the less. Your entire case about the desensitisation of modern potential sources of charity falls to pieces on this simple point which yourself stand as evidence of.

    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Most charities are changing their tack now though, placing the emphasis not on the tragedy itself and how awful it is, but how they can CHANGE it, so they also would appear to agree with me.
    This is a completely unqualifiable statement. There's simply no way to prove it one way or the other. I could list reems of negative adverts and then you could list reems of positive ones, but the truth is that most adverts exploit both as I am whole-heartedly in support of. A significant number of adverts (I'm generalising and don't have any way of supporting this granted so feel free to disagree off annecdotal evidence but your statement has just as much support) follow the formula of show the bad situation we're trying to fix, show the benefits of support of the charity then (less frequent in my observations but still fairly frequent) remind the viewer of the negative side of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Blood tests are hell for me, went for two back in the Summer, they stabbed both my arms twice each time and no blood came out. Yeah.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I can't give blood due to being underweight and on a combination of steroids and immunomodulators for Crohn's disease. Plus I have very low ferritin levels.

    I'm not sure anyone would benefit from my blood therefore, but maybe I'm wrong, I'm possibly not in the best of health generally though. I am an organ donor - I mean I'm not going to need it all when I'm gone. Only thing I can't donate is bowel tissue for obvious reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I started giving blood when i was 17, but had to stop because a. I got tattoos and b. I got put on medication. I plan on giving blood as soon as i'm off it though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not old enough yet (it's 17, right?) but plan on as soon as I am. I'm also an organ donor
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've given blood about 4 times but every time I've tried to give it since, I always feel ill the day of donation, it was getting beyond a joke, so I just gave up in the end.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phobia27)
    Barely hurts, anyone who says otherwise is exaggerating or a sissy, seriously, it doesn't hurt. Plus the free chocolate and biscuits before and after the procedure make it totally worth it.
    Well a lot of people are saying you can't if your anaemic and stuff. I probably am, I'm also a bit underweight + always dehyrated so that cant be good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Svenjamin)
    I study transfusion science. Read this post and thought of my notes in donor psychology...


    Narcissism – Experience of being special. Especially true of rare blood types. Blood donation becomes a positive contribution to identity and worth
    E.g. AB occurs in <3% of the population, so whilst it is rare, very little is needed at any one time. But as AB donors are told they have a rare blood type they feel a need to donate because they feel they are the only ones who could help, and so are much more loyal than a blood donor with a common bloodtype.


    Sound familiar?
    To be fair though, I would have donated anyway no matter what type my blood was because either way they need it. If its common they need a lot of it. If it isnt common they still need it because it's rare. To me it makes no difference, as long as it helps someone I'm not really bothered.
    Although to some extent I do agree with what you were saying, when I got my letter I did feel a little special but it doesn't influence my decision to give blood.
    I feel a little patronised by you but I don't think it was intended.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 3kimie1)
    I feel a little patronised by you but I don't think it was intended.
    Sorry, it's enthusiasm, not being intentionally patronising. To be fair, if that lecture was to be believed every blood donor is an inner sociopath (everything from people feeling the need to compete with the other donors they recognise to people feeling they need to donate to prove they're fit and well is in there), don't think it's to be taken too extremely.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I tend to faint when having a blood test so I think fainting would be a sure thing if someone tried to take a pint off me. Also, nurses always struggle to find my veins- once it took 3 nurses and a tourniquet nearly half an hour to get one phial off me, during which time they had to try both arms several times, and when I needed to be sedated one time they couldn't find the vein to put the drug in. Bad veins methinks.

    Also, I am just a wuss and scared of needles. Taking blood away is far far worse than having an injection.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I do...
    I just collapse every time I give it :sad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to but I don't weigh enough and they'd never get a pint out of me.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.