Just gave blood again, do you?
- Thread starter V4NT0M
- Start date
I don't think it's making any generalizations about homosexuals. It's simply reflecting the statistics that by engaging in anal intercourse the risk of passing on the HIV virus is greater than sex vaginally. Then again, I don't understand why heterosexual couples engaging in regular anal intercourse aren't included on that list.
The above, when coupled with the fact the test for HIV can sometimes take 3 to 6 months for a positive result, suitably justifies the 12 month waiting period imo.
Their policy has nothing to do with that, it mentions oral sex, and statistically if you use a condom anal is safer than vaginal. It's based on homophobia not statistics, as their policy contradicts the statistics.
Don't get the point of this thread at all... is it to make people feel guilty? to reinforce to people that if they don't give blood then people will die? The same could be said if you don't donate money to X charity that month then x amount of children somewhere will suffer/die etc etc....
I'm happy people want to give blood and if people don't want to give blood i'm happy with that too.
Thats their choice. Me or anyone trying to browbeat them or make them feel bad or whatever else would just be me bullying them to do something I FEEL is right not what THEY feel is right.....
I'm happy people want to give blood and if people don't want to give blood i'm happy with that too.
Thats their choice. Me or anyone trying to browbeat them or make them feel bad or whatever else would just be me bullying them to do something I FEEL is right not what THEY feel is right.....
You don't get the point but decided to post anyway.
I haven't been for a while now, not since the waiting times started climbing at my nearest place.
I may try again see if its still the case, but i refuse to wait for more than 30 mins after my pre-booked time and then another 30 mins after the iron test like last time.
I haven't been for a while now, not since the waiting times started climbing at my nearest place.
I may try again see if its still the case, but i refuse to wait for more than 30 mins after my pre-booked time and then another 30 mins after the iron test like last time.
I would if I could but I my blood has the anti M antibody in it so I wouldn't be able to. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information about anti M really but apparently it isn't that much of a big deal. Regardless, I wouldn't be able to donate mine.
Its called curiousity. I'm interested in why.
Because it's logically consistent to behave in such a way that if everybody did the same society would function.
I may need blood at some point in my life-time, if I didn't give blood when able I would be acting in such a way which would be detrimental to myself if everybody else did the same (as no blood stocks would exist) - it would be illogical to appeal to others to posses traits I don't myself.
To avoid this hypocrisy I give blood, the other reason being I think it's the right thing to do morally - but the first reason should apply regardless as to how moral you may be (otherwise you are a social parasite, benefiting from society, but not putting anything back).
I assume the purpose of this thread is to decrease the population of parasites in the UK for the blood stocks, using a combination of a gentle reminder (many forget innocently), awareness & information (alleviate any fears some may have by sharing experiences) & a reminder of the fact that we may all need blood someday so should sign up to donate.
Last edited:
To me the point of it is just to serve as a reminder. Sometimes it just doesn't occur to some people to give but they see this and think why not give it a go. For others they do give but having busy lives forget to go in, then seeing this is a prompt to go in. It has also been a good place in the past for people to ask questions about donating.
I'm certainly not interested in guilting people into going in. People do or don't give for their own reasons and that is just fine. This thread isn't really that different to many others in GD, it's something people here do so they talk about it, it's a discussion forum after all
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 722
- Location
- Devon
I keep meaning to donate but never seem to be able to get an appointment as I don't like making appointments too far in advance, but this thread made me check for the next session by me and book an appointment. I don't think it's about making people feel guilty if they don't want to give, but if like me it's laziness/forgetfulness that means I don't donate I think the thread's a good reminder that I need to do it
To me the point of it is just to serve as a reminder. Sometimes it just doesn't occur to some people to give but they see this and think why not give it a go. For others they do give but having busy lives forget to go in, then seeing this is a prompt to go in. It has also been a good place in the past for people to ask questions about donating.
I'm certainly not interested in guilting people into going in. People do or don't give for their own reasons and that is just fine. This thread isn't really that different to many others in GD, it's something people here do so they talk about it, it's a discussion forum after all
Thats very helpful thanks man
I sometimes have difficulty understanding peoples' behaviour, i appreciate the clarity.elmarko said:
So if everyone didn't do X then society would not function. That's your argument yeah?
Society still functions if A doesn't do X though right?
It depends on if the individual cares about having a hypocritical world view or not, personally I do.Thats very helpful thanks man
So if everyone didn't do X then society would not function. That's your argument yeah?
Society still functions if A doesn't do X though right?
If nobody gives blood then the individuals chance of survival decreases (in the event of an accident), by giving blood you are promoting a culture of reciprocal altruism (which is mutually beneficial)
We should behave in such a way we expect others to, if the person in question wouldn't take blood then it would be totally fine - but as most of us in the event of a car crash would happily take from the blood donation pot it makes sense to be at least willing to return blood into it (obviously excluding people who are unable).
Last edited:
I started while I was at uni, haven't been for a few years though. Have looked into starting again, seems to Scottish system is different to the E&W one where I started and the nearest event is about 13 miles away so it just doesn't seem worth it right now.
Thats great and fine and dandy...how far does that go? How far does ones "moral" or "social reciprocity agreement" extend? So we are talking UK here yeah? Because the blood pot is limited to UK right? Is this moral sense only limited to UK borders?
Am i not...in the same fashion (reciprocal altruism) bound to assist all those in need or destitute in any part of the world? So to act in one way in the local sphere (UK) but not in another part of the world is a hypocrisy no?
For example....just to tie this in to current events...are we not bound to assist citizens of countries where they are being persecuted and killed (syria, Zimbabwe, Uganda, etc etc)
Another tangent entirely is...i know that other people will give blood (thereby sacrificing their time and blood) out of this reciprocity or moral sense...my awareness and knowledge that others are doing this can mean that i don't need to. Obviously this only works if it is widely encouraged for most people to make the sacrifice and effort of donating blood. So for that to work and to make no sacrifice but still get the full benefit you need to have a system that strongly encourages lots of people to make the sacrifice (and be convinced by the argument to do so) this allows a small number of people to take advantage of the system. Thus a small number of people exploit the system...make no sacrifice but still reap full benefits.
The logic is applied unilaterally across the board.
I behave in such a way I want others to - it's that simple.
Most donations (such as the blood cancer ones & sometimes I believe blood stocks) are trading around the world - I'm signed up-to the Anthony Nolan register & if I get called to donate it could got to anybody around the world.
The entire concept of nationality is a fiction, one I don't personally ascribe to (except when forced by society).
We are ethically, but we don't because the governments don't care about that part of the world at the moment.
That's just a complex rationalisation.
The fact is, if everybody was like you, then you had an accident & needed blood - you would die.
You want blood in the event of needing it, but make no effort to ensure it remains - you can rationalise it as much as you like - but those are the facts.
If everybody in the world shared the same view as the donors in this thread, blood stocks would be brimming to the gills for all groups (including the ability to donate larger portions or blood to research/nations with lower O- stores etc) & the blood cancer registers would be saving a significantly larger amount of people annually.
Last edited:
