TomRK1089 wrote:Actually, the truth is that with a tattoo, you never know if the needle was clean or not -- the donor may have Hep C. And you don't want Hep C in the blood supply. It's not that the donor is more likely to be an immoral person, more that they don't like taking chances.
Yeah, I was referring to the diseases and such, not so much on their morality [or lack thereof].
BlackOpal wrote:darvit wrote:Moneyman2010mn wrote:I think Tattoos look unprofessional and if I was looking for someone to hire and they had a Tattoo, I would look at them in a more negative way.
Yeah, that's definitely true.
A person without a tattoo is more likely to get the job.
A reason why people with tattoos are usually rejected as blood donors is not that "their blood isn't clean because it's got ink." Actually, the real culprit is the popular belief that people with tattoos are more likely to take drugs, smoke, and have STDs and other such "blood impurities".
Injustice? You be the judge of that.
That's odd, because I thought that they tested the blood before you went in.
My mom was rejected because she took ibuprofen before she went, and they tested her blood and found that.
Yeah, I know they do, but on some facilities, they just frown upon the tattooed ones right away because they could have diseases and all. And of course, there's still that urban myth that claims that the ink would make your blood "dirty" and unacceptable for blood banks.