I have been giving blood since I was eighteen, but on and off. Mostly off, because for years and years I was disqualified for reasons of pregnancy, and having a child under one, and having been exposed to some illness. With four children, this was pretty much the usual state in the family. They didn't even manage to all have chickenpox at once, in spite of me putting them in the bath all together. We still had three bouts. Then Phil was often away. I wasn't prepared to get a baby sitter so I could go to a blood donation session, and although the centre said children were welcome, I'm pretty sure they didn't mean four all at once. And the two older boys would have had a fight.
But in spite of this, I've managed fifty seven donations. You can keep going until you're seventy, as long as you are well, so I might make seventy donations. My target was fifty, so I shall be thrilled if I can do seventy. When I retired I considered platelet donation. It takes longer and one has to attend more frequently, but I thought I would have the time. But when the nurse heard I have number of children, she said she would run the test to see if I was a suitable platelet donor if I wished, but that she was sure I wouldn't be suitable. Apparently it's to do with acquiring antibodies (or something) in pregnancy. I'm more than a bit vague about it, to be honest. But when I thought about it, I realised that I'd never seen a female platelet donor. They're all men.
Two or three years ago I joined something called the "Interval" study. Donors were allotted a set interval for donations. Mine is every sixteen weeks, which is pretty much the same as previously, when I was donating every four months. Some people are on a twelve week interval. I have my doubts about the study. In some ways it seems a bit wrongheaded. The proportion of people who are eligible to donate blood who actually do so is very small. So maybe it would be better to get more people participating, rather than getting the ones who are already doing their bit to do more.
The study also means that I get questionnaires on how well I feel and can function, what I eat, and suchlike. Apparently the NHS is an amazing resource for researchers because it has access to huge and unselected population, whereas of course, a lot of the statistics on health quoted by other countries are based on selected samples.
I'm O rh+, which is pretty boring, but they say I'm very useful. And they say "Ooh, you've got lovely veins." It's difficult to know what to say to this - whether to simper thanks, or just say yes, I know. That sounds conceited, but after all, it's nothing I can take credit for. It's just luck.
I'm also lucky, up to now, that my iron levels stay just fine, and I have never fainted in my life. Still, giving blood allows me to eat black pudding and steak and kidney pie and feel virtuous doing so - something that, alone, makes it worth donating.
But in spite of this, I've managed fifty seven donations. You can keep going until you're seventy, as long as you are well, so I might make seventy donations. My target was fifty, so I shall be thrilled if I can do seventy. When I retired I considered platelet donation. It takes longer and one has to attend more frequently, but I thought I would have the time. But when the nurse heard I have number of children, she said she would run the test to see if I was a suitable platelet donor if I wished, but that she was sure I wouldn't be suitable. Apparently it's to do with acquiring antibodies (or something) in pregnancy. I'm more than a bit vague about it, to be honest. But when I thought about it, I realised that I'd never seen a female platelet donor. They're all men.
Two or three years ago I joined something called the "Interval" study. Donors were allotted a set interval for donations. Mine is every sixteen weeks, which is pretty much the same as previously, when I was donating every four months. Some people are on a twelve week interval. I have my doubts about the study. In some ways it seems a bit wrongheaded. The proportion of people who are eligible to donate blood who actually do so is very small. So maybe it would be better to get more people participating, rather than getting the ones who are already doing their bit to do more.
The study also means that I get questionnaires on how well I feel and can function, what I eat, and suchlike. Apparently the NHS is an amazing resource for researchers because it has access to huge and unselected population, whereas of course, a lot of the statistics on health quoted by other countries are based on selected samples.
I'm O rh+, which is pretty boring, but they say I'm very useful. And they say "Ooh, you've got lovely veins." It's difficult to know what to say to this - whether to simper thanks, or just say yes, I know. That sounds conceited, but after all, it's nothing I can take credit for. It's just luck.
I'm also lucky, up to now, that my iron levels stay just fine, and I have never fainted in my life. Still, giving blood allows me to eat black pudding and steak and kidney pie and feel virtuous doing so - something that, alone, makes it worth donating.
No comments:
Post a Comment