Ever donated Blood?

[gamesquest1]

I agree with what you say. I was writing in response to the post above mine.

In Germany the law excluded homosexual men from blood donating for a lifetime. In 2017 this was changed to a restriction of one year after having had anal sex with another man in accordance with the European prohibition of discrimination rules.

I'm aware of the fact that these restrictions are in place to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. To be honest, after thinking about it for a while the only thing that may not be entirely justified is the following:

If I'm not mistaken only men who regularly change their sexual partners should have an increased risk factor of carrying STDs. A man living with another man does not pose a higher risk than a traditional male/female couple as far as I can tell.

Shouldn't the law exclude people who frequently change partners, rather than all homosexuals? Then again, how could you accurately tell this before soemone is donating blood.

As for whether it is plausible to categorize homosexuals as being more likely to frequently change their partners, I honestly can't say.
I'm absolutely no expert, these are just the points that came to mind.

yeah sorry if i seemed like i was implying you were, i just saw quite a few people on other sites saying "urrrghhh thats a homophobic rule" when i was reading up on the guidelines which seemed a little too eager to throw the term around, there is/was a legitimate concern to be made there and i'm sure it would probably also apply to people having various one night stands etc

i guess ultimately you could go too far with the restrictions where pretty much everyone would be excluded unless your a devout celibate and even then you could argue that maybe if you have had a cut at some point there is a risk you picked up a disease that way, i guess it all boils down to statistics on what's the threshold where enough blood is collected and drawing the line somewhere just beyond that, no need increasing the risk of passing diseases around even if it is just based on statistical standards, the last thing anyone needs is recovering from a major injury/illness only to find they now have something else to worry about

 

[xstre pwnsx]

Nope too squeemish.

 

[dragonblood9999]

My brother in law used to donate blood, until a worker at red cross did not let him do it because he's from Portugal and apparently he has mad cow disease cause he was born before the 80's. He doesn't have mad cow disease and he hasn't donated blood since because of some bitch that didnt feel like working. When I went to donate blood. Apparently she was saying that to alot of people and a bunch of them complain about her so they fired her.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[gamesquest1]

My brother in law used to donate blood, until a worker at red cross did not let him do it because he's from Portugal and apparently he has mad cow disease cause he was born before the 80's. He doesn't have mad cow disease and he hasn't donated blood since because of some bitch that didnt feel like working. When I went to donate blood. Apparently she was saying that to alot of people and a bunch of them complain about her so they fired her.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

sucks if that's the complete story, but is it possible your brother had ever received a blood transfusion, they made a new rule in the EU so anyone who had received a blood transfusion from the 1980's was no longer allowed to donate mainly due to fears surrounding BSE as there is no way to screen for it and they didn't want to inadvertently spread BSE throughout the blood donation service

I would like to hope this is all just a misunderstanding of people not knowing about the new rules and thinking the woman was just being lazy but she was just trying to follow the new rules.....or its possible she was indeed lazy and just didn't read the rules properly

 

[TyBlood13]

I used to do it whenever the American Red Cross came to my campus, but since leaving college I haven't bothered.

 

[spotanjo3]

No and never will. Don't trust doctor about blood donor. There might be many diseases hidden in the blood not yet to be discover. NAH.

 

[gamesquest1]

No and never will. Don't trust doctor about blood donor. There might be many diseases hidden in the blood. I refused to received it and refused give it. Doctors are always inaccurate.

well seeing as it would be you donating your blood they will check it for diseases anyway, and generally they won't give people blood all willy nilly they generally only give blood if there is a genuine high risk/certainty of dying without it, ultimately i would prefer to have a risk of contracting a disease than a risk of dying.....i don't think there is any disease currently that i would rather be dead than have....obviously i would prefer not to get any disease which is why I'm kinda glad they are so restrictive with who can donate

i can understand some concerns with medical practitioners, blind unquestioning faith in anything gives it the ability to be corrupted by bad actors, but i would say assuming they are mostly bad goes completely against all logic, sure there will be some bad apples, there is in everything, but most will be doing their job for the purposes of saving lives, and even if your cynical you can assume the "bad" part is just that they are greedy and will overcharge for stuff

 

[evilone]

I do it on a regular base, in my country you are allowed to do it maximum 6 times a year and it takes me approx. 10min.
Than i go and get some gummibears for free and im done..

 

[spotanjo3]

well seeing as it would be you donating your blood they will check it for diseases anyway, and generally they won't give people blood all willy nilly they generally only give blood if there is a genuine high risk/certainty of dying without it, ultimately i would prefer to have a risk of contracting a disease than a risk of dying.....i don't think there is any disease currently that i would rather be dead than have....obviously i would prefer not to get any disease which is why I'm kinda glad they are so restrictive with who can donate

i can understand some concerns with medical practitioners, blind unquestioning faith in anything gives it the ability to be corrupted by bad actors, but i would say assuming they are mostly bad goes completely against all logic, sure there will be some bad apples, there is in everything, but most will be doing their job for the purposes of saving lives, and even if your cynical you can assume the "bad" part is just that they are greedy and will overcharge for stuff

Yeah but it will never be accurate at all. They will make mistakes no matter what for they are only human being. Some diseases will not kill you but live inside you for the rest of your life not knowing about it. I DONT TRUST MY DOCTOR either.. So doctors are not always right, you know.

For me, I will never and ever donate and received blood at all. Its not normal and its not SAFE. Our blood is mean to be ourselves and not to share one another.

 

[gamesquest1]

Yeah but it will never be accurate at all. They will make mistakes no matter what for they are only human being. Some diseases will not kill you but live inside you for the rest of your life not knowing about it. I DONT TRUST MY DOCTOR either.. So doctors are not always right, you know.

For me, I will never and ever donate and received blood at all. Its not normal and its not SAFE. Our blood is mean to be ourselves and not to share one another.

thats your decision, and i can respect some people feel that way, i just hope for your family etc if you were ever in an accident and were going to die you might reconsider, life is precious and shouldn't be flushed away due to fears of something else happening, i could only imagine how it would affect your family etc to hear you died when you could've been saved with a simple blood transfusion

im not saying doctors know everything, and indeed most will just be following the ikea instruction manual on how to fix a person without ever truly understanding the complexities of what they are fixing, but we aren't in the times where some random guy just says "hey let me have a crack at this he is going to die anyway so lets see if i can do something here" and starts stitching frog legs where your arm should be

 

[VinsCool]

Nooope.
I've had a blood test before and a very tiny vial of my blood taken was enough to feel absolutely terrible and nearly pass out in the clinic toilet.
That was a very bad experience and I don't want to feel like this again.

 

[DinohScene]

Can't donate cus homo.
And I'm not giving up sex just to have a pint tapped from me arm.

 

[FAST6191]

I did have a similar thread a while back https://gbatemp.net/threads/do-you-know-your-blood-type.522418/
Same answer as there though -- never donated to anything other than the floor or new machinery in workshops.

Yeah but it will never be accurate at all. They will make mistakes no matter what for they are only human being. Some diseases will not kill you but live inside you for the rest of your life not knowing about it. I DONT TRUST MY DOCTOR either.. So doctors are not always right, you know.

For me, I will never and ever donate and received blood at all. Its not normal and its not SAFE. Our blood is mean to be ourselves and not to share one another.

There are probably more people that donate and receive blood each year than just about any other procedure ( https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/what-we-do/blood-services/blood-transfusion/transfusion-faqs/ reckons about 2 and a half million units per year for the UK) and the complication rates are very very low. So yes there are risks but there are risks for everything and if the alternative is people dying or suffering horribly then it seems like a reasonable tradeoff to make. There can be things caused but this is why steps are taken to prevent it.

It is best if you can keep your blood in yourself and would be great if others did not need it, however injuries/accidentts happen, diseases that are best solved by it or curing of it is aided by it. Maybe one day there will be artificial blood or blood products/components, or techniques that mean transfusions are a rarity (internal implanted tourniquets/repair functions and hyper efficient blood cells that only need a fraction to get through to work being the main two likely avenues here) but that is not here and now.

Previously you and I have talked about the Jehovah's Witnesses and I find they have are very misinformed about the process (or at least very behind the times -- when their edict against it was handed down it was a rather more risky process than it is today, and I have I seen a lot of their literature almost attempt to justify the position rather than evaluate whether it is still relevant*). To that end if you have received your information from them I urge you to instead look at the science behind it all and current effects.

*classic example might be eating pork. It spoils really easily so if you live in a hot desert prior to nice refrigerators being made and need to stop your people eating spoiled pork and getting ill you tell them it is unclean. As we do have far better food standards, transport, cooking and storage then eating pork is fairly normal and safe. Speaking of food then food poisoning cases are in the millions per year for the UK alone ( https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2014/06/30/Food-poisoning-cases-in-the-UK-exceed-1M , and given there are only 66 million people in the UK..). What do you propose there?

Certainly doctors are not always right (they themselves will tell you that), however they do an awful lot better than the person themselves and take great pains (years of training, said training also leading to specialisation, masses of precautions even then, constant evaluation of their actions, all new techniques needing to be rigorously tested ) to be right and have a better history of being right over a person themselves realising something is wrong and taking steps themselves to sort it. There are ways you can help them and yourself (basic maths says second opinions are often good things to get).

 

[FoxMcloud5655]

Previously you and I have talked about the Jehovah's Witnesses and I find they have are very misinformed about the process (or at least very behind the times -- when their edict against it was handed down it was a rather more risky process than it is today, and I have I seen a lot of their literature almost attempt to justify the position rather than evaluate whether it is still relevant*). To that end if you have received your information from them I urge you to instead look at the science behind it all and current effects.

*classic example might be eating pork. It spoils really easily so if you live in a hot desert prior to nice refrigerators being made and need to stop your people eating spoiled pork and getting ill you tell them it is unclean. As we do have far better food standards, transport, cooking and storage then eating pork is fairly normal and safe. Speaking of food then food poisoning cases are in the millions per year for the UK alone ( https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2014/06/30/Food-poisoning-cases-in-the-UK-exceed-1M , and given there are only 66 million people in the UK..). What do you propose there?

I had always thought that the reason why pork was "unclean" was because pigs don't care what they eat. They will literally eat other pigs (though not healthy for them) if given slop containing it. Because of this, the meat could contain toxins (of which people had a very basic idea of at the time) that couldn't be cooked out. Makes me wonder if a pig could be considered kosher if it was born and raised (over many generations) on clean food or possibly "grown" via basic cloning from pure DNA.

 

[FAST6191]

I had always thought that the reason why pork was "unclean" was because pigs don't care what they eat. They will literally eat other pigs (though not healthy for them) if given slop containing it. Because of this, the meat could contain toxins (of which people had a very basic idea of at the time) that couldn't be cooked out. Makes me wonder if a pig could be considered kosher if it was born and raised (over many generations) on clean food or possibly "grown" via basic cloning from pure DNA.

Given pigs are a domesticated animal, one that predates cats, chickens, camels and horses...

Also cows will eat their own as well -- it is part of the reason we have this CJD/BSE problem that was being discussed earlier, though that was in a more processed form.

I have heard people claim pigs are unclean because they have been seen to eat shit, which is endlessly amusing when said same person will in turn eat rabbit.

All that said I do find the collision of science and "because we always have/because we have for generations" religious beliefs to be a fun one. Not quite a religion (though speaking to some in that world it is quite the forgivable mistake) but vat grown/"cultured meat" meat is already a thing, just way expensive and in some cases with some other downsides (most amusingly is while you could probably vat grow a filet mignon the size of a lorry tyre it seems people actually want some of the fat and gristle as they are used to it and want a bit of effort in things, though that has arguably been known for decades -- there is no chemical/cost/preservative reason why you need to add an egg to various cake/brownie/whatever mixes, indeed the earliest ones didn't require it) and if no animal is harmed or killed to make it...

If you want a really fun religion vs food thing to ponder though then maybe look at the history of mushrooms in various Christian countries, and indeed why why the idea of picking and eating mushrooms holds a fair bit of fear for some people to this day.

Anyway I am getting off topic.

 

[Issac]

I want to donate, but can't because I'm sick It kinda sucks, but I guess it is how it is.

 

[snobbysteven]

I always donated blood in highschool for the free sweat pants LOL. Offer me some free pants and I am on board!

 

[JaapDaniels]

Donated over 30 times now, just blood.
just got on a half year break for i got anemia.
my parents showed me it's important, and isn't that painfull.
knowing i wish there's some donor when i need it, i do what i hope some will do for me when needed.

 

[spotanjo3]

It is best if you can keep your blood in yourself and would be great if others did not need it, however injuries/accidentts happen, diseases that are best solved by it or curing of it is aided by it. Maybe one day there will be artificial blood or blood products/components, or techniques that mean transfusions are a rarity (internal implanted tourniquets/repair functions and hyper efficient blood cells that only need a fraction to get through to work being the main two likely avenues here) but that is not here and now.

Previously you and I have talked about the Jehovah's Witnesses and I find they have are very misinformed about the process (or at least very behind the times -- when their edict against it was handed down it was a rather more risky process than it is today, and I have I seen a lot of their literature almost attempt to justify the position rather than evaluate whether it is still relevant*). To that end if you have received your information from them I urge you to instead look at the science behind it all and current effects.

*classic example might be eating pork. It spoils really easily so if you live in a hot desert prior to nice refrigerators being made and need to stop your people eating spoiled pork and getting ill you tell them it is unclean. As we do have far better food standards, transport, cooking and storage then eating pork is fairly normal and safe. Speaking of food then food poisoning cases are in the millions per year for the UK alone ( https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2014/06/30/Food-poisoning-cases-in-the-UK-exceed-1M , and given there are only 66 million people in the UK..). What do you propose there?

Certainly doctors are not always right (they themselves will tell you that), however they do an awful lot better than the person themselves and take great pains (years of training, said training also leading to specialisation, masses of precautions even then, constant evaluation of their actions, all new techniques needing to be rigorously tested ) to be right and have a better history of being right over a person themselves realising something is wrong and taking steps themselves to sort it. There are ways you can help them and yourself (basic maths says second opinions are often good things to get).

I understand but blood will not help them at all. Never was and never will. One day, they will make mistake. That's why I keep away from it.

thats your decision, and i can respect some people feel that way, i just hope for your family etc if you were ever in an accident and were going to die you might reconsider, life is precious and shouldn't be flushed away due to fears of something else happening, i could only imagine how it would affect your family etc to hear you died when you could've been saved with a simple blood transfusion

im not saying doctors know everything, and indeed most will just be following the ikea instruction manual on how to fix a person without ever truly understanding the complexities of what they are fixing, but we aren't in the times where some random guy just says "hey let me have a crack at this he is going to die anyway so lets see if i can do something here" and starts stitching frog legs where your arm should be

Nah... I will be okay. I lost my blood when I was kid in accident and I beg my parents not to have blood donor and my parents respect me and I survived just fine without blood donor. Now, I am stronger than ever and refused accept any blood donor. Not an opinion.. Blood donor is absolutely wrong. its a fact. Thanks, thought. I respect yours too. I am telling you my point of view. That's about it.

 

[FAST6191]

I understand but blood will not help them at all. Never was and never will. One day, they will make mistake. That's why I keep away from it.

Probably won't do much for someone with a cold but demonstrably good for trauma, any number of life changing/saving operations that are not even theoretically possible without it, any number of operations would be a thousand times rarer/more expensive/complicated/riskier without it , any number of cancer treatments, anaemia, various blood conditions,

The risks are also weighed up when doing the transfusion -- it is why even those athletes that extract their own blood, freeze it and inject it back in when their body has recovered are discouraged from doing that even despite it being their own blood and nominally kept in a sterile environment throughout it all.

Not an opinion.. Blood donor is absolutely wrong. its a fact.

I am telling you my point of view. That's about it.

How did you arrive at this point of view... or fact as the case may be?

I look out into the world and see a thousand conditions cured, cured more quickly or lessened by blood transfusions and many more that would not be alive today without them without any great harm befalling the donors of it. From where I sit to call that wrong is itself wrong -- to deny a cheap, easy, simple and largely solution to life or death problems without very sound reasoning is a moral failing and antithetical to every principle of medical care going. We could possibly have a debate about stem cells derived from foetuses but I struggle to even see an avenue for debate for something as simple as blood, blood donated by consenting adults that almost invariably go on to lead perfectly fine lives afterwards.