I think if you have been a recipient of blood donations rusty, that counts you out sadly.
They need your blood
cant give blood because i had a transfusion several years back ,thay said that there is a possibility that i could have mad cows diseases.when i asked them how could you fined that out for me thay said only when you r dead thay can run the tests to fined out
Ok, read that, but it still makes little sense.
People can lie about all sorts.
'Have you ever injected drugs?'
So, the blood Service claim there is no risk of contracting AIDS/HIV from receiving a blood transfusion, then why these rules?
Rudeboy, check the stats above, from the terrence higgins trust. They're bannign anyone likely to have aids, not anyone who's gay. Get over it.
And why the rules - because they hope that they screen out the people who just werent aware they were a risk. This vastly improves the blood screening accuracy, knowing that most people are not likely to have lied.
If you watch the blood stock tube on the national blood service website it's always going up and down but never gets any worse or better.
platelet donation takes longer than blood donation. basically they hook you up to a machine which takes blood out of you, separates the platelets out and then puts the blood (minus platelets) back into you. takes about an hour to an hour and a half to donate. you can donate more often (once a month rings a bell), but have to go to special centres to do it as the machinery is more difficult to move about i think.
I thought I read they have to add some form of "anti something" chemical into the process which obviously gets recirculated into you?
Not sure what or why?
Could be wrong, its been a while since I read up on it.
I'm another who apparently can't ever give blood having worked in an Guatemalan rain forest for 6 weeks in the early 1990s. As I was therefore at risk of some nasty tropical disease it's too expensive to screen my blood so they don't want it!
I might go back and try again. They kept turning me away in the past for having low iron levels, I'd only manage to donate about 1 in 3 visits.
Why can only men donate platelets?
anticoagulant - you wouldn't want it clotting, you need it back...
Women can donate platelets.
They don't need mine.
coffeeking, not according to this http://www.blood.co.uk/nhsbt_platelets/who_can_donate/
As a man, you are more likely to be suitable for double or triple dose platelet donation. You'll have a larger volume of blood, so you'll be able to donate more platelets and help even more patients. Men are also free of certain white cell antibodies that may be harmful to patients, have larger veins and also less likely to have low iron levels. On average, 50% of men would be suitable to be platelet donors.
This thread has spured me on to go and give blood.
I went once and never recieved a reminder.
Monday lunchtime I'll pop in.
If you've never given blood or haven't for years check blood.co.uk to see if your legible, there's around 40 questions.
Soz. I have reflected on this, and appreciate my initial reaction was a bit vehement. I just can't abide prejudice or discrimination. I'm sure people can understand this.
Just had a little chat about this with my GP; she, and apparently many health care professionals, feel that excluding Gay men from giving blood is discriminatory. They would like to see this particular rule removed.
I can appreciate the need to minimise risk of contamination etc, but there is no risk of contracting HIV in the UK, as all blood is screened.
And i'm glad that others feel the same about this.
Anyway. Giving blood is a really good thing to do, and I shall be doing so, some time soon.
RudeBoy, the gay man exclusion issue is simply a case of economic expedience over doing the right thing. You increase to odds of haviung 'useable' blood supply by excluding those statistically ( and I refer to the terrence higgins figures someone mentioned earlier) more likely to donate unusable blood.
Someone with a big calculator and all the figures will have worked out that at the current level of people volunteering to donate blood, they can be this fussy and save themselves money and resources in how much blood they take, screen and then have to reject. Were there fewer people volunteering then of course someone might decide it was worth 'widening the net' because slightly more expensive blood (via a theoretical increase in unusable donations) is better than a dire shortage.
It leaves me cold too though. I wonder just how much money is saved by this?
This topic has been closed to new replies.