Can you give?
- Thread starter AeRo
- Start date
Stone Cold
Mega Poster
Looking at the statistics, it appears that 40% of HIV infection occurs in gay males, which make up approximately 6% of the population. It seems to me to make good statistical sense to block 6% of possible blood donations in order to block 40% of the possible infections.
Of course, this ban does mean that some healthy donors are being turned away, but no-one is saying the system is perfect. 1 in 20 gay men are HIV positive, that's 5%, and medically, that's a significant risk to take.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7967881.stm
http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm
Of course, this ban does mean that some healthy donors are being turned away, but no-one is saying the system is perfect. 1 in 20 gay men are HIV positive, that's 5%, and medically, that's a significant risk to take.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7967881.stm
http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm
And yet somehow even Spain manage to allow gay men to donate without it leading to the deaths of thousands of people from AIDs...
If it was black people who were "full o' AIDs" and banned, there'd be an uproar. But, no, it's a "choice" so no-one cares about discriminating...
And of course, the fact that all the blood is tested, and thus the infection would be noticed, and then this information could actually be passed on to the man who may not realise he's infected allowing him to seek treatment is nicely ignored...
If it was black people who were "full o' AIDs" and banned, there'd be an uproar. But, no, it's a "choice" so no-one cares about discriminating...
And of course, the fact that all the blood is tested, and thus the infection would be noticed, and then this information could actually be passed on to the man who may not realise he's infected allowing him to seek treatment is nicely ignored...
Stone Cold
Mega Poster
What do you mean "even" Spain? Careful not to sling round accidental defamation! And why bring black people into this, the statistics present quite a compelling case without you needing to bleat about discrimination.
Furthermore, the blood service is stretched enough as it is without existing as a mechanism to help people too lazy to have regular sexual health check ups.
Oh and in case you were wondering, in Spain, homosexual relationships are only the third largest cause of AIDS, behind heterosexual sex in second and miles behind intravenous drug users as the leading cause; which is probably why the laws are different.
Source:
http://www.euro.who.int/aids/ctryinfo/overview/20060118_41
Furthermore, the blood service is stretched enough as it is without existing as a mechanism to help people too lazy to have regular sexual health check ups.
Oh and in case you were wondering, in Spain, homosexual relationships are only the third largest cause of AIDS, behind heterosexual sex in second and miles behind intravenous drug users as the leading cause; which is probably why the laws are different.
Source:
http://www.euro.who.int/aids/ctryinfo/overview/20060118_41
Harvey
Hyper Poster
So what you are basically saying is that he is wrong, and the numbers should be escilated?
Keeping in mind that these are "closets" as you so nicely put it, who keep their sexuality private/secret, and are unlikely therefore to have regular sexual health check-ups and are likely at a more significant risk or unknowingly carrying the virus?
Keeping in mind that these are "closets" as you so nicely put it, who keep their sexuality private/secret, and are unlikely therefore to have regular sexual health check-ups and are likely at a more significant risk or unknowingly carrying the virus?
Stone Cold said:
Quite clearly, it was tongue-in-cheek. I bought race into it because our society has quite a double standard when it comes to who it is and isn't OK to discriminate against.
Well, these are checks that are IN place, not ones I'm suggesting we bring in.
I'm not denying the statistics. What I'm arguing is the rule should be changed to not be so discriminating. Lets take an imaginary example. Two men, in a ten year relationship. Both completely clean, both regularly tested (why they're being tested in a relationship I don't know...). Why should they be discriminated against then?
I just don't see why I should be stopped from giving blood because some idiot is going around doing it bareback with a handful of guys? I think the ban should be lifted, and a "warning" system put in place. Something along the lines of "If you are a sexually active homosexual male or have had homosexual relationships with a male at some point and are not regularly tested for STIs or have been X amount of months after your homosexual encounter please consult a nurse before giving blood"
It's ridiculous to jump to an outright ban, is the NHS totally beyond any sort of lateral thinking?
Jake
Strata Poster
This is the same company who make smokers seem like the scum of the earth, whilst being majorly funded by the excessive tax on tobacco and alcohol - oh, suprise, another thing which they discourage us from consuming.
The NHS is a hypocritical, self destructing money drain. Nothing more, nothing less.
Even if they lifted the ban I still wouldn't donate, just to spite.
The NHS is a hypocritical, self destructing money drain. Nothing more, nothing less.
Even if they lifted the ban I still wouldn't donate, just to spite.
Harvey
Hyper Poster
Jake said:
You say that the smokers are financially contributing to the NHS with tax payments, yet speak of being gay proud and such forth, however if the smokers contribution can be taken into account, specifically what contribution that is unique do homosexual people make to the NHS?
None, ergo I fail to see a point raised.
