"Won't Someone Take My Blood?"

[bored@home]

I give often and lie just as often.
There is also a question about foreign travel (Caribbean included) that can black list you as well. If you want to give just play the game.

[Its Me Again]

From your website...

Discussing rates is distasteful, but necessary. What you’re paying for is time and not a specific activity, with the exception of dining. Obviously, that’s a planned activity!

Would it be any different if the gents you see didn't hand you money?

And do you really know of a man having sex with a man or just assuming?

So you have paid dates with potentially questionable men. If you're clean and you know it donate in good conscience. If you don't feel comfortable with it then don't do it. Only you can determine that.

[MaxiMilyen]

Interesting topic. I gave blood for years, despite my irrational fear of needles. Those needles are pretty big though, and I actually have a few faint scars from doing this. No big deal and ya gotta look for them. I no longer fear needles, but am not a fan of the initial puncture. Makes me a little faint.

I agree the questions are invasive, and give a false sense of safety. The blood is tested. Period. No need to grill folks concerning intended good deeds of this nature.

Btw, Elizabeth....O negative blood is the universal donor of blood and AB positive is the universal recipient. I'm not sure if O negative is rare, or not, but I'm sure it's the most relied on type, since it can be received by all types. AB positive can tolerate receiving any type of blood.

[Guest092216]

Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

Testing the blood equals money and resources that could be better used. The simple reality is all of us, especially the providers are in a higher risk group. Why waste resources and time on a high risk group? As a big picture thing, perfectly understandable.

I don't see this as bias against anyone. If blood will save my life, I don't care who gave it.

They test the blood anyway. Regardless of who donates it. No time or resources are lost. That's the point.

[needingmilking]

Originally Posted by THN

They test the blood anyway. Regardless of who donates it. No time or resources are lost. That's the point.

Yes, they test it, but if it test positive on anything, they destroy it, so return on investment is=0

They invest money and people hours to get the test done, that cost money and time, and if we know we are a high risk, then it make sense to remove us from the equation.

The point is to reduce waste to the minimum.

For example, lets say that 8 people, and you and I, go give blood (total or 10 people, 8 civilians and 2 in the hobby)

Then they test the blood, spend $10, and 10 minutes (1 minute and $1 per person, obviously an oversimplification)

Then they drop 2 people, lets say one civilian, and me (or you)

Total blood: 8 units, total cost? $10, 10 minutes, or $1,25 per unit

If the high risk group, you and I, had not shown up, then:
Total Blood: 7 units (they still drop the civilian!), total cost? $8 and 8 minutes, or $1.14 per unit.

Multiply this by the thousands of people that donate, the savings/waste is huge!!

This is not an emotional argument, is a resource management one. There is no phobia or -ism, it does not make sense to give if its going to be wasted and the resources are misused.

[CG2014]

Simple Solution:

get yourself STD tested regularly every 2 months with urine and blood samples and if all 10-12 tests come back negative, go donate blood.

Yes, it's expensive lab tests, almost $1,300 if you have no insurance but your life and healthy well being is worth 1 million times more than that $.

I donate blood regularly and I get tested regularly several times per year and the test results are always negative.

Plus all my vaccinations shots are up to date.

[Guest092216]

Originally Posted by needingmilking

Yes, they test it, but if it test positive on anything, they destroy it, so return on investment is=0

They invest money and people hours to get the test done, that cost money and time, and if we know we are a high risk, then it make sense to remove us from the equation.

The point is to reduce waste to the minimum.

For example, lets say that 8 people, and you and I, go give blood (total or 10 people, 8 civilians and 2 in the hobby)

Then they test the blood, spend $10, and 10 minutes (1 minute and $1 per person, obviously an oversimplification)

Then they drop 2 people, lets say one civilian, and me (or you)

Total blood: 8 units, total cost? $10, 10 minutes, or $1,25 per unit

If the high risk group, you and I, had not shown up, then:
Total Blood: 7 units (they still drop the civilian!), total cost? $8 and 8 minutes, or $1.14 per unit.

Multiply this by the thousands of people that donate, the savings/waste is huge!!

This is not an emotional argument, is a resource management one. There is no phobia or -ism, it does not make sense to give if its going to be wasted and the resources are misused.

Well that is very true. Wanna come balance my checkbook?

[needingmilking]

Originally Posted by THN

Well that is very true. Wanna come balance my checkbook?

LOL... well, it depends, as long as I dont have to defend you in any audits, sure, why not?

[oldbutstillgoing]

Originally Posted by THN

They test the blood anyway. Regardless of who donates it. No time or resources are lost. That's the point.

NM. Point made above

[Guest092216]

Originally Posted by needingmilking

LOL... well, it depends, as long as I dont have to defend you in any audits, sure, why not?

Nope. I'm legit.

[TexTushHog]

THN, what do blood donation personnel say if people tell the truth and give an equivocal response to the first question? E.g.

Q: have you ever had sex with a man who has had sex with a nam?
A: how in the world would I know?

[Guest092216]

I have no idea. I suppose they would then ask: "To the best of your knowledge...?"

The last few years that I've donated, I've answered all the questions on an ipad or tablet device. The questions were yes/no. I think if you answer yes it kicks you off and a staff member has to determine your safety risk via one on one interview. I'm a universal donor so I try to donate at least three times per year.

I've always felt the questions are stupid. But that milking fellow makes a great point as does FunInDFW. If people think their blood isn't safe then they probably aren't donating anyway.

[Its Me Again]

I think the cost of research and staff are more than made up for with the cost they charge when someone receives it. Cost asside, if you're clean and know it, donate. It's good for you and it very much is needed. I donate every 8 weeks like clockwork. I often wonder if I helped save a life and that's good enough reason for me.

[TheEccie214]

Originally Posted by THN

They would call you and bring you in. There's a formal and documented process of notifying someone that they are HIV positive. Regardless of how or where your blood is tested.

Thank you.

Great thread with interesting discussion EW.

[needingmilking]

Originally Posted by Its Me Again

I think the cost of research and staff are more than made up for with the cost they charge when someone receives it.

And how you came up with that? any sources?
So waste resources for the heck of it?

Originally Posted by Its Me Again

Cost asside, if you're clean and know it, donate.

yes, if you are clean and you know it, yeah, clap your hands and donate.

Originally Posted by Its Me Again

It's good for you and it very much is needed.

It is needed, sure, but good for us? we get a therapeutic benefit?

Originally Posted by Its Me Again

I donate every 8 weeks like clockwork. I often wonder if I helped save a life and that's good enough reason for me.

Narcissist much?
AH! you are a HEROOO!!!

Oh Jeeezzzus!!