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

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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'm not even allowed to give blood because I'm gay. I'm not HIV+ so where's the problem?