British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant
-
Inclusiveness
Idiots
British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant
Potential blood donors in Scotland are asked if they are pregnant as part of a mission to promote inclusiveness, officials said
A British blood donor said he was turned away after refusing to answer a question asking if he was pregnant, citing that he is a man in his 60s, according to reports.
Leslie Sinclair, 66, told the Daily Mail he has given 125 pints of blood over the past five decades. But on his last trip to a clinic in Stirling, Scotland, he was told to fill out a form that asked if he was expecting a child or had been pregnant in the past six months.
After noting that he is a male, the clinic staff said they could not accept his blood unless he provided an answer despite a push by officials to attract new blood donors.
All potential donors are asked the question to "promote inclusiveness" and because pregnancy is not always visually clear, according to the report. ://www.foxnews.com/world/british-man-blood-question-pregnant
-
Despite having donated blood many times myself, I have never really thought about it or looked it up, but because of this thread, I looked it up — indeed one who is pregnant is generally barred from donating blood. Apparently there is correlation between being pregnant and having iron deficiency anemia.
-
Yes, it is a stupid question. And I am pretty sure they ask it in the US also.
But, what was the big deal. Why didn't he just answer "no" and move on.
Not sure that was a very principled stand he was making.
:woman-shrugging:
-
Yes, it is a stupid question. And I am pretty sure they ask it in the US also.
But, what was the big deal. Why didn't he just answer "no" and move on.
Not sure that was a very principled stand he was making.
:woman-shrugging:
@taiwan_girl said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
But, what was the big deal. Why didn't he just answer "no" and move on.
I had the same thought, TG. Life's too short, you know?
Also, maybe the office intended the form to have universal use so there would be no need for a separate form for men and for women, and that is what the designers meant by inclusivity, and the staff misunderstood.
"Staff" might have meant one person -- one very politically stupidified person, and she supplied her own interpretation. Or the reporter made it up to create a story.
-
Sometimes, gross stupidity demands an appropriate response.
-
I agree but.........
The person taking the info is probably the lowest person the totem pole. Told to ask this question - if the question is not answered, person cannot donate blood. It stops there.
In this case, I would ask myself which is more important? Pointing out the stupidity of a question to a person who doesn't really care what your response is or (possibly) helping to save a life? Seems like easy decision to me.
-
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
-
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
I confess to getting triggered when confronted with an electronic form that has me check “sex assigned at birth”, one of the big pharmacy chains has that.
When I see it on a paper form I write in “Nope, determined at meiosis”.
-
I confess to getting triggered when confronted with an electronic form that has me check “sex assigned at birth”, one of the big pharmacy chains has that.
When I see it on a paper form I write in “Nope, determined at meiosis”.
-
Yes, it is a stupid question. And I am pretty sure they ask it in the US also.
But, what was the big deal. Why didn't he just answer "no" and move on.
Not sure that was a very principled stand he was making.
:woman-shrugging:
@taiwan_girl said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Yes, it is a stupid question. And I am pretty sure they ask it in the US also.
Actually, I have never seen or heard that question asked of me by the Red Cross here in the USA. The Red Cross uses an electronic questionnaire here where the question on whether you are a “male” or “female” comes up early, then (I’m guessing) the computer probably just skips over the “are you pregnant” question automatically if you selected “male” for the “male/female” question earlier.
-
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
@Catseye3 said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Maybe. Maybe not. About needing the blood, that is.
If we were full up, we used a cupric sulfate solution that a polycythemic patient couldn't have passed.
"Sorry, you're just a little anemic. Go home, eat well for the next two weeks, especially liver and leafy green vegetables. By then, your hemoglobin should be within acceptable limits".
If we had plenty of one type, but not enough of another, we'd do a fast slide type off of the fingerstick for the cupric sulfate. Patients don't have a clue about the specific gravity of the solution, so they could pass, but if we didn't need the type, the tech doing the typing would give the phlebe the high sign and the donor would get the anemic lie.
-
@Catseye3 said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Maybe. Maybe not. About needing the blood, that is.
If we were full up, we used a cupric sulfate solution that a polycythemic patient couldn't have passed.
"Sorry, you're just a little anemic. Go home, eat well for the next two weeks, especially liver and leafy green vegetables. By then, your hemoglobin should be within acceptable limits".
If we had plenty of one type, but not enough of another, we'd do a fast slide type off of the fingerstick for the cupric sulfate. Patients don't have a clue about the specific gravity of the solution, so they could pass, but if we didn't need the type, the tech doing the typing would give the phlebe the high sign and the donor would get the anemic lie.
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Catseye3 said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Maybe. Maybe not. About needing the blood, that is.
If we were full up, we used a cupric sulfate solution that a polycythemic patient couldn't have passed.
"Sorry, you're just a little anemic. Go home, eat well for the next two weeks, especially liver and leafy green vegetables. By then, your hemoglobin should be within acceptable limits".
If we had plenty of one type, but not enough of another, we'd do a fast slide type off of the fingerstick for the cupric sulfate. Patients don't have a clue about the specific gravity of the solution, so they could pass, but if we didn't need the type, the tech doing the typing would give the phlebe the high sign and the donor would get the anemic lie.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
-
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Catseye3 said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Maybe. Maybe not. About needing the blood, that is.
If we were full up, we used a cupric sulfate solution that a polycythemic patient couldn't have passed.
"Sorry, you're just a little anemic. Go home, eat well for the next two weeks, especially liver and leafy green vegetables. By then, your hemoglobin should be within acceptable limits".
If we had plenty of one type, but not enough of another, we'd do a fast slide type off of the fingerstick for the cupric sulfate. Patients don't have a clue about the specific gravity of the solution, so they could pass, but if we didn't need the type, the tech doing the typing would give the phlebe the high sign and the donor would get the anemic lie.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Catseye3 said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Maybe. Maybe not. About needing the blood, that is.
If we were full up, we used a cupric sulfate solution that a polycythemic patient couldn't have passed.
"Sorry, you're just a little anemic. Go home, eat well for the next two weeks, especially liver and leafy green vegetables. By then, your hemoglobin should be within acceptable limits".
If we had plenty of one type, but not enough of another, we'd do a fast slide type off of the fingerstick for the cupric sulfate. Patients don't have a clue about the specific gravity of the solution, so they could pass, but if we didn't need the type, the tech doing the typing would give the phlebe the high sign and the donor would get the anemic lie.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
Of course it's unethical. And effective. If you tell them you don't need it, chances are you'll never see them again.
-
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Catseye3 said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Sorry, but the bullshit stops somewhere. Apparently, they don't need the blood.
No; they do need the blood, that is why the agency exists. It might not have been bullshit so much as wrongheadedness.
The wiser course would be to reprimand the staffer (or fire her to get rid of her stupid ass), get back in touch with the donor and explain what happened, and hope he comes back.
Maybe. Maybe not. About needing the blood, that is.
If we were full up, we used a cupric sulfate solution that a polycythemic patient couldn't have passed.
"Sorry, you're just a little anemic. Go home, eat well for the next two weeks, especially liver and leafy green vegetables. By then, your hemoglobin should be within acceptable limits".
If we had plenty of one type, but not enough of another, we'd do a fast slide type off of the fingerstick for the cupric sulfate. Patients don't have a clue about the specific gravity of the solution, so they could pass, but if we didn't need the type, the tech doing the typing would give the phlebe the high sign and the donor would get the anemic lie.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
Of course it's unethical. And effective. If you tell them you don't need it, chances are you'll never see them again.
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
Of course it's unethical. And effective. If you tell them you don't need it, chances are you'll never see them again.
Ah, expedience over ethics, the Ten Commandments and the Hippocratic Oath be damned.
Cannot speak for other blood donors, but I think I would be more offended by the lie and fake diagnosis rather than being honestly told that blood (or blood of particular type) is not needed at this time. Longer term, I'm guessing it would be even more damaging to the sources of donations if would-be donors lose trust in the system's integrity. It takes quite a bit of trust to let a stranger stick a needle into you and leave the needle in for 5~10 minutes. :man-shrugging:
-
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
Of course it's unethical. And effective. If you tell them you don't need it, chances are you'll never see them again.
Ah, expedience over ethics, the Ten Commandments and the Hippocratic Oath be damned.
Cannot speak for other blood donors, but I think I would be more offended by the lie and fake diagnosis rather than being honestly told that blood (or blood of particular type) is not needed at this time. Longer term, I'm guessing it would be even more damaging to the sources of donations if would-be donors lose trust in the system's integrity. It takes quite a bit of trust to let a stranger stick a needle into you and leave the needle in for 5~10 minutes. :man-shrugging:
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
Of course it's unethical. And effective. If you tell them you don't need it, chances are you'll never see them again.
Ah, expedience over ethics, the Ten Commandments and the Hippocratic Oath be damned.
Cannot speak for other blood donors, but I think I would be more offended by the lie and fake diagnosis rather than being honestly told that blood (or blood of particular type) is not needed at this time. Longer term, I'm guessing it would be even more damaging to the sources of donations if would-be donors lose trust in the system's integrity. It takes quite a bit of trust to let a stranger stick a needle into you and leave the needle in for 5~10 minutes. :man-shrugging:
Personally, I could care less if you're offended.
-
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Jolly said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
@Axtremus said in British man turned away from giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just tell the would-be donor the truth? Why scare the well-meaning donor with fake diagnosis of anemia? It just seems rather unethical, and unnecessary at that.
Of course it's unethical. And effective. If you tell them you don't need it, chances are you'll never see them again.
Ah, expedience over ethics, the Ten Commandments and the Hippocratic Oath be damned.
Cannot speak for other blood donors, but I think I would be more offended by the lie and fake diagnosis rather than being honestly told that blood (or blood of particular type) is not needed at this time. Longer term, I'm guessing it would be even more damaging to the sources of donations if would-be donors lose trust in the system's integrity. It takes quite a bit of trust to let a stranger stick a needle into you and leave the needle in for 5~10 minutes. :man-shrugging:
Personally, I could care less if you're offended.
