Giving Blood

A P

Made a New Year's resolution to give blood more often and donated my first pint of the year in D'Olier St today. After all the indulgence over Christmas, it was nice to be able to scoff some Custard Creams, Breakaway bars and 7-UP guilt-free afterwards! Nice friendly staff up there, and I was in and out within an hour. For anyone thinking of donating, the details are on http://giveblood.ie/

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I've donated 12 times so far. I'm not going to be able to donate until July now but as soon as I am allowed, I will. 8 more units to go until I get my gold pin! Hopefully I'll have that before I'm 29.

Deenie123

I find donating takes an awful lot out of me. I'm barely over the minimum weight and I find I'm quite run down and lethargic after it. Have gone back to college, which finishes in May.... So I will donate again during the summer, and hopefully manage a donation every 6 months after.

sitstill

I would love to donate blood but I'm not allowed because I'm a big dirty gay :-(

Gael23

sitstill wrote: »

I would love to donate blood but I'm not allowed because I'm a big dirty gay :-(

What if your not sexually active does that change anything. Although I assume thats somewhat irrelevant as most will be.

tampopo

100+ times in all, in 5 countries.

It's all good...

Mushy

I've around 60-70 donations, but have had some medical procedures lately so will be a long while until I can donate again. That's for platelets, I also normally work weekdays so I find it hard to give time to it as it's closed on weekends!

Joe prim

ryanf1 wrote: »

All the regulations about who can and cannot gove blood put me off doing it. Also I know a few people that were unwell after giving blood

Hear hear, regulations schmegulations! who needs rules , man..just take the blood for gosh sake, what could go wrong?

Gael23

Joe prim wrote: »

Hear hear, regulations schmegulations! who needs rules , man..just take the blood for gosh sake, what could go wrong?

My sister blacked out after it. She shouldn't have been allowed todo are due to medical reasons having said that

JaseBelleVie

I try to give blood as often as I can. However, the last few times, I've been turned down due to having had a cold too soon before I tried to donate.

But it is very worthwhile to do.

And guys, those regulations are there for patient safety. I know they are a pain in the arse sometimes, but remember all the people who got hepatitis from contaminated blood way back? The current regulations are helping to keep blood products safe.

beertons

tampopo wrote: »

100+ times in all, in 5 countries.

It's all good...

All platlets? That's an impressive number.

Mint Sauce

If they ever life the ban against people who lived in the UK during the Mad Cow period, and I dont mean Maggie Thatcher, I'll be there.

sitstill

ryanf1 wrote: »

What if your not sexually active does that change anything. Although I assume thats somewhat irrelevant as most will be.

Its a lifelong ban for any man who has had sex with a man. If you are gay but never actually had any sexual contact with another man, I guess you'd be ok.

Micky Dolenz

When I lived in Ireland I gave it as much as I could. That saying " Give blood, someday you may need it" (Or similar) struck a chord with me.

Gael23

I just don't see how it's ok for a man to put his penis in and part of a woman but not in another mans rear end.

JaseBelleVie

ryanf1 wrote: »

I just don't see how it's ok for a man to put his penis in and part of a woman but not in another mans rear end.

Logic behind it is that fairly antiquated notion that gay men are sexually promiscuous, have higher incidences of STI's/HIV and are thus more high risk than heterosexuals.

It is very outdated and discriminatory. I think even some members of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service have admitted as such.

Gael23

It should be case by case, surely they can do some quick rest like they do for haemoglobin.

tampopo

beertons wrote: »

All platlets? That's an impressive number.

No, about half platelets, the rest direct blood donations...

chrysagon

im almost at donation 50... but i still find it amazing how many talk about donating, but never do, generally due to lack of time, yet if these folk need a transfusion, they will be forced to make time!!

wow sierra

Anyone who can - please please do give it. Sometimes supplies are so low that they risk having to cancel surgeries - and God knows the Health Service needs all the help it can get. It's really easy and painless. I have been donating all my adult life and remember the old days when they gave you a glass of Guinness afterwards - they don't anymore sorry But yeah an excuse for chocolate bars/taytos etc.

I hate needles and blood tests etc but the staff at the Blood bank are really good. You hardly notice the needle going in - not like some I have had doing blood tests. If you don't like the sight of needles just look away - they cover it once it's in.

One bit of advice, while the donation itself is very quick you might be waiting a while so bring along a book or paper - although I suppose these days people can amuse themselves with their phone. They have local clinics about twice a year in most towns so you don't need to go to D'Olier st - just in case people don't realise.

HeidiHeidi

I'll echo all of the above. Easiest good deed you'll ever do.

I hit the 50 mark last year, sadly I couldn't make the presentation dinner they throw for all 50-donors, so my award, whatever it is, will be waiting for me at my next donation

If you're going to donate in D'Olier St, I'd recommend phoning in advance and making an appointment - at some point they shifted priority to those with appointments, and I fell foul of this system next time I went in - sat waiting while person after person went ahead of me, and only when there was a gap in appointment people did they slot me in. Well, I learned that lesson well and have made an appointment ever since!

I have no idea of the rhyme or reason behind the restrictions on those who can donate (and there are a LOT of questions asked) - especially the one on gay people - but I do remain convinced that they are sooooo desperate, so often, for donations that they wouldn't cut out an entire section of the population just for the fun of it, or because they're discriminatory old fogeys.

wow sierra

The ban on Gay's is annoying - I remember signing petitions about it a few years back. I presume they have Lawyers who make the rules in relation to risk based on a possibility of a claim - even if it's a remote one because of HIV. There are similar questions in relation to using needles for drugs ever in your life. It would certainly not be for any moral or discrimination grounds. The ban on people who have lived in the UK is a bit OTT also.

Corruptedmorals

D'olier street rejected me a year ago for having taken iron in the previous few months. This thread reminded me about it, I will try again this week, haven't needed to take it since. Unfortunately I am a good bit closer to the minimum weight than I was then, hopefully it will be okay.

Deenie123

JaseHeath wrote: »

Logic behind it is that fairly antiquated notion that gay men are sexually promiscuous, have higher incidences of STI's/HIV and are thus more high risk than heterosexuals.

Gay men DO have higher incidences of HIV than the population who are allowed to donate. That's still fact. As long as that remains fact, I don't see them relaxing it. They have a MASSIVE responsibility to their patients (donors and recipients) to ensure that they contract nothing as a result of blood donations. Appeasing a group just because they're offended is NOT the right thing to do.

AlanS181824

I've always wanted to donate blood, the whole process confuses me though.

It's definitely something I will do though!

HeidiHeidi

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I've always wanted to donate blood, the whole process confuses me though.

It's definitely something I will do though!

It's easy peasy.

Set aside (a maximum of) two hours some day, head in to a clinic, and follow their instructions. You'll register with them, fill out a questionnaire, as a first-time donor will have an interview with the doctor, have a finger-test for iron in your blood (make sure you're not anaemic), then in you go and they do the rest.

Couldn't be simpler!

AlanS181824

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

It's easy peasy.

Set aside (a maximum of) two hours some day, head in to a clinic, and follow their instructions. You'll register with them, fill out a questionnaire, as a first-time donor will have an interview with the doctor, have a finger-test for iron in your blood (make sure you're not anaemic), then in you go and they do the rest.

Couldn't be simpler!

That's actually a lot of steps!:pac:

I was lookin at their map and there's no clinics near me all the way to April so I guess I won't be donating for a while still!

HeidiHeidi

AlanS181824 wrote: »

That's actually a lot of steps!:pac:

I was lookin at their map and there's no clinics near me all the way to April so I guess I won't be donating for a while still!

As a first-timer there will be a lot more to it than subsequent visits. I can be in and out in 45 minutes no problem.

Don't let the initial visit put you off!

cardboardmike

I have donated infrequently for years. Infrequent because I am rarely in that part of town. They will pay for your parking in Fleet Street. I will chalk it down on must do in 2015. By the way it doesn't take 2 hours, a little longer for 1st visit but otherwise half an hour.

Deenie123

cardboardmike wrote: »

I have donated infrequently for years. Infrequent because I am rarely in that part of town. They will pay for your parking in Fleet Street. I will chalk it down on must do in 2015. By the way it doesn't take 2 hours, a little longer for 1st visit but otherwise half an hour.

Yea and much quicker if you've made an appointment.

Tips:

Drink 500ml water before donating - about 10 mins before you go in.
Eat in the hour before donating.


If you don't do both, they'll probably turn you away if it's your first time.

Lia_lia

MadsL wrote: »

I can't give blood because I didn't eat cow during the Mad Cow outbreak in the UK, but I lived there so barred in Ireland and the US. :rolleyes:

They generally wince when I tell them I am also O negative...damn useful in other words.

Same here. I was born in the UK and lived there for a few years. Funny thing is I was brought up as a vegetarian and didn't eat beef for the first time until I was a teenager..

Capt'n Midnight

ryanf1 wrote: »

It should be case by case, surely they can do some quick rest like they do for haemoglobin.

Mad Cow Disease could have been prevented had anyone bothered to apply the lessons learnt form Kuru to animal feed.

Also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12094094

The mean incubation period of kuru was estimated at between 10.3 and 13.2 years. Point estimates of the 90th percentile ranged from 21.1 to 27.0 years.

So even a 27 year ban could still leave you with a 10% risk.

For some things are no quick tests.

if there was a new disease like Kuru with an average incubation time of 10 years it might take years before anyone noticed and then years more to figure out reliable tests

cardboardmike

I walked in off the street to Stillorgan Clinic one time but they seemed to only welcoming those who make appointments. I'm afraid I'm more of a spur of the moment person. Very worthwhile to do and don't be afraid. The pin prick in the finger is sorer than tan the needle into the arm.

Deenie123

cardboardmike wrote: »

I walked in off the street to Stillorgan Clinic one time but they seemed to only welcoming those who make appointments. I'm afraid I'm more of a spur of the moment person. Very worthwhile to do and don't be afraid. The pin prick in the finger is sorer than tan the needle into the arm.

They're using a different device these days

HeidiHeidi

cardboardmike wrote: »

I walked in off the street to Stillorgan Clinic one time but they seemed to only welcoming those who make appointments. I'm afraid I'm more of a spur of the moment person. Very worthwhile to do and don't be afraid. The pin prick in the finger is sorer than tan the needle into the arm.

Used to be, but that particular form of torture is gone.

The slide a "sleeve" over the finger now. Utterly painless!

cassid

had a bad time on last baby and lost half my blood, was knocked out but had to get several blood transfusions. So thanks to all who donate, much appreciated.

Now because I got a blood transfusion, I can not donate blood or could not donate breast milk. This was only 4 years ago, the consultant came an said sorry for giving me blood without my permission, I had no issue with him saving my life

gnf_ireland

All,

I made it my New Years Resolution last year to go give blood. With 2 young kids I felt it was something good that would take up a minimum amount of time and would of course help someone in need. Done my 4 donations last year and will continue it this year as well. I admire those who reach the 50 and 100 donations. Given I will only have 6 done by the time I reach 40, its a long way to go !!

There are restrictions yes - some of us may feel they are overly strict, but clearly they have adopted an ultra conservative approach to donations. I don't think any of us need reminding of the Hepatitis scandal and the impact it had on the people who got 'bad' transfusions. The clearly have done some level of due diligence on the risks associated with gays, drug users, those who have used the services of prostitutes, those living in the UK between certain years etc, and deemed them to be inappropriate currently. Hopefully there is an ongoing review of these and the restrictions will be lifted once the medical experts feel they should be.

My personal view is while I don't personally agree with all of the restrictions, I have to trust the medical experts are doing the right thing. This does not take away from the fact that each donation I give does good and helps someone who is unfortunate enough to need a transfusion.

And yes, for most centres it is better to make an appointment in advance !

Good luck and happy donating ! This was the first true New Years Resolution I was actually able to stick to !

Donnielighto

JaseHeath wrote: »

Logic behind it is that fairly antiquated notion that gay men are sexually promiscuous, have higher incidences of STI's/HIV and are thus more high risk than heterosexuals.

It is very outdated and discriminatory. I think even some members of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service have admitted as such.

Is there any stats that show a higher incidence of stis or anything?

A Neurotic

Donnielighto wrote: »

Is there any stats that show a higher incidence of stis or anything?

In 2013, 46% of new cases of HIV transmission were in men who have sex with men. Considering that that group forms a fairly small minority of all sexual interactions, I'd say that's a fairly significant rate.

Source: HPSC report on HIV in Ireland.

AlanS181824

Was it only a few days ago that they finally lifted the ban on gay men donating blood in America?

I don't understand them being banned at all, yes they are more likely to contract HIV... In the 90's but not now!

I really think it's way too unfair to be honest.

Deenie123

A Neurotic wrote: »

In 2013, 46% of new cases of HIV transmission were in men who have sex with men. Considering that that group forms a fairly small minority of all sexual interactions, I'd say that's a fairly significant rate.

Source: HPSC report on HIV in Ireland.

Was just about to post this.

There's every reason to continue to exclude MSM from donation. They're halving the risk of HIV infected blood getting into the system. By excluding those known to have HIV, as well as injecting drug users and migrants, the risk is significantly lowered.

So yeah, it's not claptrap or antiquated notions at all, it's cold hard fact.

If gay men want to be able to donate, the onus is on the gay community to get the infection rates under control.

Deenie123

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Was it only a few days ago that they finally lifted the ban on gay men donating blood in America?

I don't understand them being banned at all, yes they are more likely to contract HIV... In the 90's but not now!

I really think it's way too unfair to be honest.

Did you read the link above? In the first 6 months of 2014 men having sex with other men was responsible for 45.9% of NEW HIV diagnoses.

Gael23

Deenie123 wrote: »

Was just about to post this.

There's every reason to continue to exclude MSM from donation. They're halving the risk of HIV infected blood getting into the system. By excluding those known to have HIV, as well as injecting drug users and migrants, the risk is significantly lowered.

So yeah, it's not claptrap or antiquated notions at all, it's cold hard fact.

If gay men want to be able to donate, the onus is on the gay community to get the infection rates under control.

Can they not test a gay man before donation or test the blood that has been given and if it's disease free then use it?

HeidiHeidi

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Was it only a few days ago that they finally lifted the ban on gay men donating blood in America?

I don't understand them being banned at all, yes they are more likely to contract HIV... In the 90's but not now!

I really think it's way too unfair to be honest.

The quote above yours would beg to differ!

Like I said earlier, I'm fairly sure the IBTS wouldn't exclude a fairly large number of potential donors just for the lols. The hepatitis scandal I'd say fairly spooked them, along with the mad cow debacle - they can't afford something like that to happen again, however unlikely it might be.

AlanS181824

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

The quote above yours would beg to differ!

Like I said earlier, I'm fairly sure the IBTS wouldn't exclude a fairly large number of potential donors just for the lols. The hepatitis scandal I'd say fairly spooked them, along with the mad cow debacle - they can't afford something like that to happen again, however unlikely it might be.

Oh, I didn't see that before I posted!

I can totally understand their reasoning behind it but I find it really is just mean.

HeidiHeidi

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Oh, I didn't see that before I posted!

I can totally understand their reasoning behind it but I find it really is just mean.

I don't think "mean" comes into it.

AlanS181824

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I don't think "mean" comes into it.

I just think that having someone who wants to donate and help others and then can't purely based on who they have sex with is just wrong!

HeidiHeidi

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I just think that having someone who wants to donate and help others and then can't purely based on who they have sex with is just wrong!

It's not based on who they have sex with, though.

It's based (presumably) on the statistical probability of there being a risk of that blood containing an STI/HIV.

Deenie123

ryanf1 wrote: »

Can they not test a gay man before donation or test the blood that has been given and if it's disease free then use it?

Not that simple.

Problem 1:
Incubation period. It takes a while between infection and testing positive. Irish heterosexual people comprised 7.5% of those who tested positive for the first time (new cases of) for HIV in Q1&Q2 of 2014. MSM comprised 45.9%. Allowing MSM to donate would increase the likelihood of a false negative due to testing within the incubation period by about 500%. You want to take that risk?

Problem 2:
Test accuracy. Without going into specificity and sensitivity of the individual test used to detect HIV, no test is 100% accurate. Even someone who should test positive for HIV, may not always test positive. If you increase the number of people donating who are hugely more likely to have HIV, you increase the likelihood of having a false negative result when testing for HIV.

So no, they can't just test for it. They do that anyway, but they also have to ensure that those who they accept for donation aren't already in a high risk group. MSM ARE a high risk group.

Deenie123

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Oh, I didn't see that before I posted!

I can totally understand their reasoning behind it but I find it really is just mean.

What would be exceptionally mean would be accepting donations from high risk groups (how would you feel about accepting blood from someone from sub-saharan africa?) without regard for the safety of the recipients, just because they didn't want to "be mean".