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

nnnomi
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
On Tuesday, I went to a sexual health clinic with a friend because she wanted a routine sexual health check up, so I said I'd be a good friend and have one done with her to make her feel better. This was all done in a really decent way, and one part of it was they had to take a very very small bit of blood to test for HIV / hepatitis, etc. Fine. I have no symptoms of said diseases, nor any other STD. I was due to give blood today, so asked the nurse at the clinic whether this would affect my donating. She said no. Great. I get my results in 2 weeks (positive they'll be negative )

So today, the NHS donating blood 'bus' came to my student accommodation and asked us all to donate. I'd signed up a few days ago and was really quite excited (dunno why). So I got there, filled in medical form (all fine), then mentioned about the routine sexual health check up (as there's a small hole in my arm where they took blood). And the nurse asking me about my medical history was like 'Why? Why did you get checked up?' So I explained the story and she was like 'Well you can't give blood today, you might have HIV etc etc'. Because I was waiting for results, I couldn't give blood.

I got really frustrated because I DON'T have any diseases, and SO WHAT if I just got a ROUTINE check up?! I bet none of the other people on that donation 'bus' have just got their negative HIV results back in the post. She didn't seem to understand that it was ROUTINE, I didn't go to the sexual health clinic for a specific reason.

Therefore, today, I couldn't give blood. And it got me really really annoyed, because this lady was just being ridiculous.

Should she have let me given blood? Or is she right?

End of rant.
0
reply
hamzab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
She's right. Now get to bed.
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
I agree with her, if you're waiting for results you might as well donate after you've got them.
0
reply
Barça
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
Of course she's right, don't be daft. Better be safe than sorry.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
I agree with your logic, simply having the test alone doesn't itself make it any more or less likely that you will have a disease (any of the others could have caught something last night for all she knows - when did they last get a clean bill of health?), that's just insanity. They test the blood anyway!
0
reply
JellyBean123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
No, they're only being thorough and doing their job. Even if it was just a routine check, if they have any reason to believe that there is even a tiny chance of you having HIV/hepatitis or anything then they cannot take your blood.

I can understand its annoying, but you can just go do it again some other time. Just look on www.blood.co.uk and you can see when they're next in your town, they come quite often to each place.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
(Original post by Lizia)
She's right to stop you. For all she knows, the people actually giving blood that day who weren't waiting test results, knew for certain they were clean. Whereas you having pending results meant you weren't. Whether it was a routine test or not, it's still a question mark above your name, and people aren't averse to lying about their disease status, so she had to do things by the book.

You have to look at it from her point of view- it's better to refuse to take blood from someone who might have diseases, than let them give blood and potentially waste everyone's time.
What if they had unprotected intercourse last night, but didn't confess it?

There is a question mark above everybody's name, all that test does is prove that you were clean at the very second it was taken, not even for 10 minutes longer.
0
reply
nnnomi
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#8
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?
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
(Original post by JellyBean123)
No, they're only being thorough and doing their job. Even if it was just a routine check, if they have any reason to believe that there is even a tiny chance of you having HIV/hepatitis or anything then they cannot take your blood.

I can understand its annoying, but you can just go do it again some other time. Just look on www.blood.co.uk and you can see when they're next in your town, they come quite often to each place.
But it was a routine check! Is an athlete that had a drugs test any more likely to have drugs in their system than one who didn't have a test? It makes absolutely no difference.
0
reply
nnnomi
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#10
(Original post by Craig_D)
But it was a routine check! Is an athlete that had a drugs test any more likely to have drugs in their system than one who didn't have a test? It makes absolutely no difference.
You see my point!
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
(Original post by nnnomi)
You see my point!
Indeed I do!
0
reply
Nalced
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
I went so depressed cause they didn't take my blood. Because of my unique travel history and where I've lived and travelled. I couldn't give blood as I qualified to tick ALL THE WRONG BOXES. I was so depressed that the nurse was saying, you could have HIV, Hepatitis A, B, C, Dengue Fever, Fellow Fever, This that, A HUGE LIST. I tick every diseased and contagious thing on the planet.

I was expecting not to be alive for next year for when the blood bus came along again.
0
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
Tbf, you can't give blood until like 6 months (or so) after you've had your ears pierced... how's that for OTT?

I seem to be permanently unable to give blood as it's hardly ever been 6 months since I've had something pierced. :nothing:
reply
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
(Original post by nnnomi)
You see my point!
According to your profile you're at Birmingham Uni... just go into town where there is a permanent donation centre that's open all the time except Friday afternoons (and don't go at lunch time because it'll be packed).
0
reply
nnnomi
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#15
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Tbf, you can't give blood until like 6 months (or so) after you've had your ears pierced... how's that for OTT?

I seem to be permanently unable to give blood as it's hardly ever been 6 months since I've had something pierced. :nothing:
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.
0
reply
nnnomi
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#16
(Original post by thefish_uk)
According to your profile you're at Birmingham Uni... just go into town where there is a permanent donation centre that's open all the time except Friday afternoons (and don't go at lunch time because it'll be packed).
I will be, don't worry about it!

I'll just wait for my blood results first... :yep:
0
reply
mackeroo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
There's no point donating blood if there's a chance it might be infected with something like HIV. I'm not sure what sort of reaction you were expecting here..
0
reply
Awesome-o
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 8 years ago
#18
Well I'm sure you'll find the whole situation funny if your test comes back positive for HIV.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 years ago
#19
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.
0
reply
speedbird
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
(Original post by nnnomi)
On Tuesday, I went to a sexual health clinic with a friend because she wanted a routine sexual health check up, so I said I'd be a good friend and have one done with her to make her feel better. This was all done in a really decent way, and one part of it was they had to take a very very small bit of blood to test for HIV / hepatitis, etc. Fine. I have no symptoms of said diseases, nor any other STD. I was due to give blood today, so asked the nurse at the clinic whether this would affect my donating. She said no. Great. I get my results in 2 weeks (positive they'll be negative )

So today, the NHS donating blood 'bus' came to my student accommodation and asked us all to donate. I'd signed up a few days ago and was really quite excited (dunno why). So I got there, filled in medical form (all fine), then mentioned about the routine sexual health check up (as there's a small hole in my arm where they took blood). And the nurse asking me about my medical history was like 'Why? Why did you get checked up?' So I explained the story and she was like 'Well you can't give blood today, you might have HIV etc etc'. Because I was waiting for results, I couldn't give blood.

I got really frustrated because I DON'T have any diseases, and SO WHAT if I just got a ROUTINE check up?! I bet none of the other people on that donation 'bus' have just got their negative HIV results back in the post. She didn't seem to understand that it was ROUTINE, I didn't go to the sexual health clinic for a specific reason.

Therefore, today, I couldn't give blood. And it got me really really annoyed, because this lady was just being ridiculous.

Should she have let me given blood? Or is she right?

End of rant.
That doesn't make any sense. So if someone who has HIV gives blood and says he doesn't have any STDs, will they just take their word and not check? I mean, they're supposed to make sure that all collected blood is free from HIV/hepatitis/whatever, aren't they?

In my country when you give blood they tell you that even if you've tested negative the day before they have to check themselves, and they normally ask for your phone number so they can let you know if you test positive for any STD.
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (621)
80.65%
Leave (149)
19.35%

Watched Threads

View All
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