Are you a Blood Doner?

jor el

No

microgirl wrote:

What most hospitals do for surgery like that is operate a cell salvage system where the blood lost during the surgery is collected, cleaned up, and pumped back in.

For some reason I suddenly had this vision of a little robot hoover going around the operating room floor, sucking up spilled blood, and pumping it back into the patient :eek: It's probably nothing like that though. Pity, that'd be cool.

Wacker

No

So after giving blood yesterday, I have decided to sign up for donating bone marrow. I hear it is meants to be fearsome, but probably in no way painful compared to the agony of the leukemia sufferers that I may be helping.

The_Conductor

Wacker wrote:

So after giving blood yesterday, I have decided to sign up for donating bone marrow. I hear it is meants to be fearsome, but probably in no way painful compared to the agony of the leukemia sufferers that I may be helping.

Fair play Wacker- its a pity there aren't more people like you around.

Shane

Wacker

No

smccarrick wrote:

Fair play Wacker- its a pity there aren't more people like you around.

Shane

Cheers.

Xylem

smccarrick wrote:

Fair play Wacker- its a pity there aren't more people like you around.

Seconding this.

CathyMoran

smccarrick wrote:

Fair play Wacker- its a pity there aren't more people like you around.

Yes, well done. As I said previously, I got 6 units of blood after surgery to remove cancer, would not be here had it not been for those blood donors who helped me out in my time of need.

Scrotum

No

O rh Positive here, giving my 10th donation on thursday.
I always feel great after giving blood, everybody should do it if they can.

Attol

I'm A+. Can't donate over here seeing as I lived in England between 92 and 94. I donated while I lived there last year. It's not that scary and would urge all those that can to do it. It's not that scary and everyone is really nice and understanding if it's your first time. I think that the mad cow ban at this stage is ridiculous.

Jotter

Ive donated around 3 times I think. Havent been able to donate for the last 3 yrs bec I got injections for going abroad so had to wait a year and I had a baby last year so have to wait for a year before i can donate again. Baby will be 1 in Aug so intend going in then,they rang a couple of times and I felt really bad that I couldnt do it,they said they use my blood for baby packs, anyone know what these are - I felt extra bad when they said that esp bec I had just had my baby and hated to think of little babies needing blood but they said I had to wait the full year, they cant take me before then.

What are platelet donations, Ive never heard of that? Im o positive as far as I remember which is the common one so nothing unusual there.

theTinker

No

philstar wrote:

yes i did it, but only the once, as i made a complete tit of myself.

because being the woss that i am i nearly passed out half way through, cause when i looked over at the bottle full of blood i started getting queasy and the nurses stopped the procedure.

i just have to toughen up a bit i think:o

As far as nature goes, That sounds like a perfectly reasonable response to see alot of your blood outside your body

I love giving blood, done 4 already. every 90 days without a miss(bankholidays mean 91 :P).
Everyone is so friendly there, theres chicks, free food, biscuits "to keep for later". Ah sure, its something to do which is a little different. Plus i get to feel all high and mighty when people see my blood donation card.
A rhd+

Raven_k42

No

I gave blood all the time before I went to the UK in '91. A- as well...so they were always glad to see me in Pelican House !. I hate not being able to give blood now that I'm back. Is this likely to change at some point ?.

K.

PS. I mean the "not being able to give blood bit". I don't think my hating things is likely to change in the near future !!.

Steve_o

I have received a donation before

I'm not but i keep meaning too....*puts on top of to do list*

quinta

Had to get 4 pints of blood 2 months ago, a huge thank you to everyone who has taken time to donate, I too would have been lost without it.

Stupid question time. Can I donate if I have received blood in a transfusion?

Dave!

No

quinta wrote:

Had to get 4 pints of blood 2 months ago, a huge thank you to everyone who has taken time to donate, I too would have been lost without it.

Stupid question time. Can I donate if I have received blood in a transfusion?

I'm afraid not

Zaph

No

quinta wrote:

Stupid question time. Can I donate if I have received blood in a transfusion?

Unfortunately not, this is from the IBTS website for donors excluded indefinitely from giving blood:

A blood transfusion in Republic of Ireland on or
after 01 January 1980 – (other than an autologous transfusion)

I've got to wait a while before I can donate again because I had surgery. Fair enough, I suppose.

quinta

Fair enough. Although i think i'm done with having needle holes in me for quite a while.

Hagar

zaph wrote:

quinta wrote:

Stupid question time. Can I donate if I have received blood in a transfusion?

Unfortunately not, this is from the IBTS website for donors excluded indefinitely from giving blood:

BTSB wrote:

A blood transfusion in Republic of Ireland on or
after 01 January 1980 – (other than an autologous transfusion)

A sad indictment of the disasterous mis-management of our blood banks straight from the mouth of the BTSB themselves.

Raphael

Born in UK in 1989 and livd ther for a few yars, so they don;t want my filthy scot-tainted blood.

What annoys me is the fact that my dad usd to give blood as often as he could until the time that rule was brought in and IBTS basically told him they didn't want his blood any more. Especially when they run the ad-campaigns that attempt to guilt trip people into donating.

Oh, and if I could give blood, I would. Hell, I've been somewhat tempted to make a day trip to a country I am allowed to give blood and do it there.

rsynnott

I have received a donation before

I'm not allowed give blood as I'm a filthy homosexual, and lived in England during the period that they're worried about vCJD for.

The ban on homosexuals, I think, is a little weird. You can be a homosexual who only has safe sex and be banned, and a heterosexual who has unsafe (promiscuous) sex (and is thus at far greater risk) and give as much blood as you like.

funky penguin

No

There's no ban on homosexuals, its the act of anal sex and so forth.

rsynnott

I have received a donation before

funky penguin wrote:

There's no ban on homosexuals, its the act of anal sex and so forth.

It's a ban on males who have had oral or anal sex with men - "You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used" (from IBTS site)

Okay, so I suppose bisexuals are covered too.

rollotomassi

Ineligible cos I'm diabetic.

spurious

funky penguin wrote:

There's no ban on homosexuals, its the act of anal sex and so forth.

But not for women who have had anal sex, protected or not.

It's a stupid ban.

patrickolee

rsynnott wrote:

I'm not allowed give blood as I'm a filthy homosexual, and lived in England during the period that they're worried about vCJD for.

The ban on homosexuals, I think, is a little weird. You can be a homosexual who only has safe sex and be banned, and a heterosexual who has unsafe (promiscuous) sex (and is thus at far greater risk) and give as much blood as you like.

They are just been extremely careful after their previous messups/court cases over contaminated blood products from the US. I have no problem with them excluding higher risk groups if it makes the supply that they have more reliable. It seems a little insulting until you think about the reasons they are doing it. It is not to suggest that homosexuals are by their nature more promiscuous. Rather to ensure all our safety.

- a fellow filthy

funky penguin

No

spurious wrote:

But not for women who have had anal sex, protected or not.

It's a stupid ban.

I realise that. But it must be understood that its not a ban to alienate homosexuals.

If you are gay and have never had any sexual relations with another man then you can still donate.

If you are straight but have previously had anal sex with a man then you cannot donate.

rsynnott

I have received a donation before

funky penguin wrote:

I realise that. But it must be understood that its not a ban to alienate homosexuals.

If you are gay and have never had any sexual relations with another man then you can still donate.

If you are straight but have previously had anal sex with a man then you cannot donate.

Or oral, remember.

It'd make far more sense to ban people who have unsafe sex, really. (Though up until recently that would have been difficult, condoms only having been legalised in '93).

microgirl

No

Attol wrote:

I think that the mad cow ban at this stage is ridiculous.

Considering there have been several cases of proven transfusion-transmitted vCJD in Britain, and that transfusion-transmitted vCJD has a significantly shorter gestation period/survival time than food-derived vCJD, it really, really isn't.

New technologies are being developed to be able to detect vCJD in blood and/or remove any prions from blood, and if they ever become properly available the deferral might be lifted.

microgirl

No

rsynnott wrote:

I'm not allowed give blood as I'm a filthy homosexual, and lived in England during the period that they're worried about vCJD for.

The ban on homosexuals, I think, is a little weird. You can be a homosexual who only has safe sex and be banned, and a heterosexual who has unsafe (promiscuous) sex (and is thus at far greater risk) and give as much blood as you like.

Not if you've done so in the previous 12 months you can't

Crumble Froo

nope, would love to be, as blood donors saved my life when i was a kid...

but due to having had a tattoo, acupuncture, and surgery and blood transfusions during a certain time period, i can never be a donorl, at least here....

i do carry an organ donor card, though, for whatever use that may be.

microgirl

No

The only one out of that list that actually stops you donating indefinitely/forever is receiving transfusions. I'm presuming you received them after January 1st 1980

Crumble Froo

yep.

i got the tattoo and acupuncture that just happend to be recently when i dropped into the clinic, but turns out that due to receiving transfusions somewhere between 1989-1991 (i was really young, they were my earliest memories) i cant ever give blood here.

doesnt help that teh first transfusion i got, i had a really bad reaction to, temperature and fever and ****, had to stop givin me that one, and give me an other one, followed by a whole series of tests for HIV, HepC etc....

Mr. CooL ICE

No

I have only done it 3 times so far. I could have it done another 3 or 4 times since my first donation, but I was either not around, or had a joint in my hand when I got the text from IBTS and decided I wasn't eligible.

I do it purely for goodwill (and the tea and biscuits!), and apart from the weak feeling afterwards, I feel like I have done a good deed and earned the right to act like an asshole for a while

DaBreno

rsynnott wrote:

Or oral, remember.

It'd make far more sense to ban people who have unsafe sex, really. (Though up until recently that would have been difficult, condoms only having been legalised in '93).

Am I right then in assuming that they do not test the individual samples they take from people before they are used?

Jotter

I have no idea but to me it would make little sense not to - if they have contaminated blood but dont know the source then the unhealthy donor will be allowed donate again thus increasing the chances of contaminated blood going through to patients. This happened already with hepititis so i would hope the blood bank have learned from mistakes.

they also make you sign a thing to say youre not getting tested just to find out if you are clear from hiv etc and also that its ok for them to contact you if they have a problem with your donation. Would be interesting to hear for definate though

microgirl

No

All donations are tested fully for the whole range of nasty things - HIV, HepB and HepC, HTLV, syphilis etc. It would be stupid beyond all belief to assume that every single person who donates has a) been completely honest and b) even knows themselves if they're carrying anything. But no test is 100% foolproof. There is always the possibility of a false negative - and extremely, infinitesmally small possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.

All donations are also 100% traceable back to the person who gave them. So if a donation tests positive for any of the transmissable diseases that are tested for the donor can be identified and procedures followed.

DaBreno

microgirl wrote:

All donations are tested fully for the whole range of nasty things - HIV, HepB and HepC, HTLV, syphilis etc. It would be stupid beyond all belief to assume that every single person who donates has a) been completely honest and b) even knows themselves if they're carrying anything. But no test is 100% foolproof. There is always the possibility of a false negative - and extremely, infinitesmally small possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.

All donations are also 100% traceable back to the person who gave them. So if a donation tests positive for any of the transmissable diseases that are tested for the donor can be identified and procedures followed.

Thats good to know. But why then the blanket bans against Homosexuals? If they have the ability to examine each donation then it shouldnt matter who gives it or what their lifestyles are. I thought the organisation was crying out for blood, it doesnt make sense to bar a sizeable section of society.

rsynnott

I have received a donation before

DaBreno wrote:

Thats good to know. But why then the blanket bans against Homosexuals? If they have the ability to examine each donation then it shouldnt matter who gives it or what their lifestyles are. I thought the organisation was crying out for blood, it doesnt make sense to bar a sizeable section of society.

To an extent probably historical; risk of HIV among homosexuals used to be far greater than among heterosexuals. A few countries have now dropped the ban.

microgirl

No

DaBreno wrote:

Thats good to know. But why then the blanket bans against Homosexuals? If they have the ability to examine each donation then it shouldnt matter who gives it or what their lifestyles are. I thought the organisation was crying out for blood, it doesnt make sense to bar a sizeable section of society.

Largely historical reasons, but also extensive studies have been carried out and simply the increased testing needed and the increased risk (remember the false-negatives ) isn't cost-effective for the increase in regular donations that would result.

There are other reasons as well that I can't remember, but most of them were economic and risk-assessment reasons. I found a brilliant article/paper a few years ago explaining it all, when I was getting a lot of stick from gay friends of mine about it, but can't find it now. Don't think it's online anymore.

I'm afraid all I can really say is that there's reasons, it's constantly under review, and the medical professionals who make these decisions know far more about the subject than we do and are far better placed to make those decisions than we are. Until such time as it changes, if it ever does, you just have to accept it *shrug*

rsynnott

I have received a donation before

microgirl wrote:

I'm afraid all I can really say is that there's reasons, it's constantly under review, and the medical professionals who make these decisions know far more about the subject than we do and are far better placed to make those decisions than we are. Until such time as it changes, if it ever does, you just have to accept it *shrug*

Incidentally, the IBTS have said that they will change it if the Dept. of Health will allow them to, apparently.

Spyral

I had a sore knee (muscular nothing to do with blood) btu they wouldnt take it. I jsut wasted an hour of my life to be told to naff off for no*cking reason so I CBA wasing an hour of my life again to be told to naff off for no good reason. They may say that they need blood not excuses but when they provide sh*tty excuses then they evidently dont want my precious O blood..

Kernunos

No

there used to be regular clinics in UL, in the student centre but the Students Unions voted to ban them from the college after they refused to amend the ban on gays. Not sure if it was a positive thing or not, seems a bit OTT to me (the ban on gays) but as Microgirl said they are seem to have their own reasons. I have donated around 4 times myself, between tattoos, piercings and travelling i have not been able to give regularly.

I did manage to convince two of my friends and my sister to come with me once but they would not take any of them. My sisters because she had paracetemol two days before, my friend because he sneezed and they thought he might have a cold, even though it was just because the hall was dusty and my other friend because he had not eaten properly in the last three hours. Of course his idea of not eating properly was that the chocolate, coke and **** he had been eating had not filled him up. I think that they can be a bit too cautious tbh, paranoid about making the same mistakes they made during the 80's.

Dave!

No

Kernunos wrote:

there used to be regular clinics in UL, in the student centre but the Students Unions voted to ban them from the college after they refused to amend the ban on gays. Not sure if it was a positive thing or not, seems a bit OTT to me (the ban on gays) but as Microgirl said they are seem to have their own reasons. I have donated around 4 times myself, between tattoos, piercings and travelling i have not been able to give regularly.

That is f*cking ridiculous! The SU apparantly think that the IBTS have an agenda against homosexuals. I'm not sure of the merits of banning gays from donating (but I would think that the IBTS have given it some thought and decided that based on risk, it was the best thing to do), but regardless, they're not a private enterprise trying to make money in the college, and the students union is preventing them from doing so. They're a statutory body with the sole purpose of SAVING LIVES. UL SU are playing their part in preventing the IBTS from SAVING LIVES. Absolute f*cking retards.

funky penguin

No

Kernunos wrote:

there used to be regular clinics in UL, in the student centre but the Students Unions voted to ban them from the college after they refused to amend the ban on gays. Not sure if it was a positive thing or not, seems a bit OTT to me (the ban on gays) but as Microgirl said they are seem to have their own reasons.

And I thought the UCD SU was bad.

I got two letters yesterday reminding me of a temp clinic nearby. Its that time again!*















*time for free food

rsynnott

I have received a donation before

Kernunos wrote:

there used to be regular clinics in UL, in the student centre but the Students Unions voted to ban them from the college after they refused to amend the ban on gays.

That does seem a little mad. It's USI policy specifically NOT to do things like this, but instead to put pressure on the IBTS through publicity. Of course, UL isn't a USI college.

Schlemm

If you weigh 50kg exactly will they still let you give blood?

Nordie

I have received a donation before

I have a rare blood type AB neg but told I need to be over 8 stone to give blood, is that true?

Schlemm

Nordie wrote:

I have a rare blood type AB neg but told I need to be over 8 stone to give blood, is that true?

Ye I think you've to be at least 50kg or almost 8 stone (7st 12lb I think).

boneless

No

Regularly gave blood until five or six years ago. They won't take it anymore because I have artrithis....

Nordie

I have received a donation before

Schlemm wrote:

Ye I think you've to be at least 50kg or almost 8 stone (7st 12lb I think).

Thanks Schlemm.

Nevyn

No

I really don't understand why they can't have blood donation clincs in all the hospitals and why they can't open for a few hours on a saturday even once a fecking month.