PDA

View Full Version : Gay Rights Or Gay Wrongs



brokencross
15-Apr-08, 08:37
They are at it again. The Gay Equal rights, anti-discrimination lobby now want the right to give blood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7347108.stm

Having looked at the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service website there is also "discrimination" against prostitues, tatooed people, foreign travellers, folk who have had their ears pierced recently, skinny people, pregnant ladies, if you have been to the dentist and many more.

http://www.scotblood.co.uk/whoCanDonate.asp

As far as I can see these rules are there for very good reasons, the health of the actual donor and minimising the risk, as much as possible, of accepting infected blood from any "at risk" donor. It is not solely or overtly anti blooming gay; it is a sensible measure after what appears to be well founded risk assessment.

Why on earth can these Gay lobbyists not just get on with their own lives instead of seeking out causes. The lifestyle is tolerated (not necessarily fully accepted) by society in general, so why don't they quit rocking the boat while they are ahead.

Oddquine
15-Apr-08, 09:07
Until there are more accurate methods of testing, I can't see the problem with blanket bans on gay males.........better safe than sorry..........after all, as far as I'm aware, gay females can give blood, so it's not a gay rights issue...it's a health issue.

I'd guess there have been more people who picked up something nasty from the blood of gay men than from people with newly pierced ears and the underweight.

NickInTheNorth
15-Apr-08, 09:19
There is no more danger from non-promiscuous gay men than there is from non-promiscuous heterosexual people. Indeed worldwide there are far far more heterosexual people HIV positive than there are gay men. So why should they be discriminated against?

They ask questions of all donors to assess risk of infection. Why they choose to believe heterosexuals, and not homosexuals I do not know.

And given the low level of donating currently in the UK I would think that any willing donor should be accepted and judged on the criteria which actually pertain to a genuine risk of infection, rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

mccaugm
15-Apr-08, 09:22
Actually I have the opposite opinion. If the gay person practises safe sex then the risk is as low as a heterosexual person practising safe sex.

As was stated in the article the ban came about during the 80's panic over AIDS and HIV. It was wrongly assumed that being gay meant you had a predisposition to becoming HIV+

We need more blood to be given rather than less.

The testing of blood has progressed over the years so I am sure things would be fine.

brokencross
15-Apr-08, 09:30
There is no more danger from non-promiscuous gay men than there is from non-promiscuous heterosexual people. Indeed worldwide there are far far more heterosexual people HIV positive than there are gay men. So why should they be discriminated against?

They ask questions of all donors to assess risk of infection. Why they choose to believe heterosexuals, and not homosexuals I do not know.

And given the low level of donating currently in the UK I would think that any willing donor should be accepted and judged on the criteria which actually pertain to a genuine risk of infection, rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

The latest thinking from England and Wales may not quite agree with your appraisal:- http://www.blood.co.uk/pdfdocs/position_statement_exclusion.pdf

NickInTheNorth
15-Apr-08, 09:54
Given the stated reasons in that position paper which I don't think it appropriate to mention openly on here, then they should enforce a total ban on anyone who has practised either of the 2 particular practises they highlight as leading to the high risk. Neither practice is restricted to gay men.

I am afraid that the advice seems to have been developed rather in the same way as the original anti-homosexual legislation was in Victorian England. It was only aimed at men because Queen Victoria refused to believe that woman would ever enjoy the intimate company of other women!

Penelope Pitstop
15-Apr-08, 12:44
Just a thought.....how does this affect organ donation....if indeed it does?

Would an organ be rejected if donated from a sexually active gay man??

Boozeburglar
15-Apr-08, 12:50
http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

It is pretty meaningless to talk about overall numbers of people infected in different groupings when you are trying to assess risk.

As a percentage of the overall gay male population, HIV rates are many times that found in the heterosexual community.

Yes a gay male practising strictly safe sex is minimising their own exposure, but they still belong to a high risk group.

You cannot subdivide groups into endlessly and do an individualised risk assessment.

You won't be giving blood if you have recently travelled to a high risk country, so why if you belong to a high risk group?

Things like life insurance, etc. are a different matter, they should reflect the fact you are in a safer sub category, but that profiling is not funded by the Tax Payer.

Boo hoo if you are gay and you don't think it is fair.

I don't remember any friend or colleague of mine from Zimbabwe or who was gay complaining, (and I used to live with many of them), when they were excluded from the blood donation round we used to have amongst HA staff. Perhaps they were thinking of the greater good.

:)

EDDIE
15-Apr-08, 17:13
to be honest about it the blood should be checked first before giving to anyone in need no matter who u are.

Penelope Pitstop
15-Apr-08, 17:15
to be honest about it the blood should be checked first before giving to anyone in need no matter who u are.

It is checked ................to the best of their current ability. As with everything nothing is 100%.....except death of course.:~(

badger
15-Apr-08, 18:32
There is no more danger from non-promiscuous gay men than there is from non-promiscuous heterosexual people. Indeed worldwide there are far far more heterosexual people HIV positive than there are gay men. So why should they be discriminated against?

They ask questions of all donors to assess risk of infection. Why they choose to believe heterosexuals, and not homosexuals I do not know.

And given the low level of donating currently in the UK I would think that any willing donor should be accepted and judged on the criteria which actually pertain to a genuine risk of infection, rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

Oh Nick - I was agreeing with you and thinking someone with sense at last until I got the last few words. Lifestyle choice? Come on. Surely you know better than that.

Apart from that though you're absolutely right. It's a nonsense rule. It always amazes me that one has to tick all those little boxes - and they believe you!! As if anyone is going to get that far only to have to admit to some stranger that they have paid for sex or any of the other more dubious things in the list. These days I imagine many people don't even know the accurate history of people they've had sex with so unless they've always been 100% protected how can they be sure they're telling the truth?

_Ju_
16-Apr-08, 07:22
I have often wondered about the sexual practice part of the questionaire. Back home, risk behaviour was defined as anyone of any sex that had multiple sexual partners especially if unprotected sex was practiced. Here if you are a man who had sexual contact with another man ( does not say anything about protection) you are a risk forever. If you are a woman and in the last year have had sexual contact with a man who has had homosexual contacts ( how likely is it that you will know that if you are having casual sex???) or have had "alternative" sexual contact with a man then for that year you cannot donate (again nothing about protection). Considering that the fastest growing group of HIV infection is the young heterosexual population defining homosexual acts as a risk behaviour does not make any sense at all. The risk behaviour has to be casual sex, especially with multiple partners and especially without protection.

honey
16-Apr-08, 08:59
id rather receive blood from any of the gay men i work with (as an ecample) (2 in relationships longer than my marriage) than some of the wee tarts (both sexes) in my building who are out every weekend sleeping with god knows who and picking up god knows what.

I actuall discussed this recently with one of the gay men at my work, he explained the "technicalities" that make the spread of infection higher.. but if there is no infection to spread... wheres the risk??


down here, we have ads on the radio on a daily basis begging for blood, yet we are turning away suitable donors in their hundreds.

balto
16-Apr-08, 16:57
surely as long as the men wanting to give blood practice safe sex then surely there cant be any higher a risk than blood from a straight person, after all it isnt just gay men that can contract hiv, and if they are as desperate for blood donners then surely it makes sense to screen anybody that is willing to donate.

percy toboggan
16-Apr-08, 19:15
Approximately five per cent of the population - homosexual men - are responsible for almost fifty per cent of new HIV infection.

I would not want blood from a man who has sex with other men...
this is another eample of a few zealots wanting totally equal treatment..are homo's bending over backwards in an attempt to donate blood?...queuing up only to be spurned...leaving them bereft and feeling useless?
I doubt it.
Enough said.

balto
16-Apr-08, 20:12
Approximately five per cent of the population - homosexual men - are responsible for almost fifty per cent of new HIV infection.

I would not want blood from a man who has sex with other men...
this is another eample of a few zealots wanting totally equal treatment..are homo's bending over backwards in an attempt to donate blood?...queuing up only to be spurned...leaving them bereft and feeling useless?
I doubt it.
Enough said.
but surely their blood would be screened for any infections or hiv so i would be just as safe.

percy toboggan
16-Apr-08, 20:53
but surely their blood would be screened for any infections or hiv so i would be just as safe.

As things stand there is no 100% safe test on blood products for a total lack of HIV infection.
So said an expert haematologist on the subject on BBC RAdio 4 yesterday.

_Ju_
16-Apr-08, 21:00
Approximately five per cent of the population - homosexual men - are responsible for almost fifty per cent of new HIV infection.

I would not want blood from a man who has sex with other men...
this is another eample of a few zealots wanting totally equal treatment..are homo's bending over backwards in an attempt to donate blood?...queuing up only to be spurned...leaving them bereft and feeling useless?
I doubt it.
Enough said.

Ignorance is very dangerous with this disease. The fastest growing group of HIV infections after intravenous drug users is heterosexual youngsters. The questionaire you answer when you donate blood ( which I do) does not weed out people who are effectively having very dangerous risky behaviours and is, instead, picking on the easy targets (and on top of it all, if you have the same behaviour, but happen to be a woman, you are a risk for one year, where as if you are male it is a permanent risk??????). As I said, back home the questionaire concentrates on people having casual, indiscriminate and unprotected sex. Whatever their gender and whome ever they are canoodling with. This is what makes sense.
Percy, hopefully it will never happen, but when you are lying there, needing blood to survive, even if it has come from the only gay muslim immigrant in the north yorkshire village (that has obviously been tested and found to be healthy), you will (or maybe should would be a better term given the intervenients) be very grateful for that pint of blood that they took the time and effort to give.

balto
16-Apr-08, 21:02
As things stand there is no 100% safe test on blood products for a total lack of HIV infection.
So said an expert haematologist on the subject on BBC RAdio 4 yesterday.
i didnt realise that, so what if someone lies on the questionaire that you have to answer when you go to give blood whos know what might get passed through if this is the case

karia
16-Apr-08, 21:23
My best mate has Haemophillia and requires factor 8 or 9 from blood three times a week to ensure he does not bleed to death. He was never expected to reach 'adulthood' but has only received tainted blood twice in his forty years.

1st) Hepatitis C..traced eventually to a female drug user and which lead to a year of 'Interferon' treatment where he lost his hair and suffered many of the other debilitating side effects that are on a par with chemotherapy.

2nd) more scarily CJD ( mad cow disease) from a burger eater...no tests..no quarantine period..just a huge old fear that that tremor in his hand might be the start of something..Oh and 'depression' is another of the few side effects from CJD...lucky he is a happy sort of guy!


He is a 'straight' guy who would welcome blood products from the gay community who thanks to AIDS know the importance of truth when giving blood..

He is the bravest in the world..I am honoured to be his friend so I take him at his word when he says he prefers gay blood donors..because they actually THINK about it...and know the damage that can be done at first hand.

percy toboggan
17-Apr-08, 17:41
Ignorance is very dangerous with this disease. The fastest growing group of HIV infections after intravenous drug users is heterosexual youngsters.

I did not refer to the 'fastest growing' group I referred to the overall number of new cases. Ignorance is indeed dangerous...and so is manipulation and mis-interpretation of language. Not the first time I've had to check your words carefully.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or cannot recognise the truth when it stares them in the face.

There are not tens of thousands of homosexual men who are desperate to give blood. The leaders of their pro-active 'trades organisations' and focus groups like 'Stonewall' are constantly pushing the envelope for widespread acceptance of an abnormal though often natural orientation.. They want to be in the mainstream...and currently they see the bloodstream as a new issue to pick away at, hoping enough hand wringing liberals will sympathise with their non-existent plight and give it the nod.

Maybe a scheme where homosexuals could receive blood from other homosexuals might be an acceptable, if somewhat implausible alternative...perhaps some benefactor with millions to spare can set it up. I wonder how many would opt in.

balto
17-Apr-08, 18:38
what i really think is, if the blood is checked for every infection then surely the blood must be ok, dont get the difference between someone straight and someone gay giving blood after all it isnt just men that are gay that can contract hiv.

scotsboy
17-Apr-08, 18:44
what i really think is, if the blood is checked for every infection then surely the blood must be ok, dont get the difference between someone straight and someone gay giving blood after all it isnt just men that are gay that can contract hiv.

It is all to do with risk, gay homosexual men are deemed a higher risk because activities which they may practice provide an enhanced risk of infection transfer.

I don't think it was a decision made on philosophical grounds, more one made on reasonably forseeable events............the kind of thing Insurance brokers and bookies deal with every day.

mccaugm
17-Apr-08, 22:09
I did not refer to the 'fastest growing' group I referred to the overall number of new cases. Ignorance is indeed dangerous...and so is manipulation and mis-interpretation of language. Not the first time I've had to check your words carefully.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or cannot recognise the truth when it stares them in the face.

There are not tens of thousands of homosexual men who are desperate to give blood. The leaders of their pro-active 'trades organisations' and focus groups like 'Stonewall' are constantly pushing the envelope for widespread acceptance of an abnormal though often natural orientation.. They want to be in the mainstream...and currently they see the bloodstream as a new issue to pick away at, hoping enough hand wringing liberals will sympathise with their non-existent plight and give it the nod.

Maybe a scheme where homosexuals could receive blood from other homosexuals might be an acceptable, if somewhat implausible alternative...perhaps some benefactor with millions to spare can set it up. I wonder how many would opt in.

Being gay is not "abnormal", neither is it a lifestyle choice, its just the way someone is. Being homosexual applies to both men and women. Their wish to give blood is a positive thing and should be encouraged. I cannot believe that you are naive enough to suggest having a different blood bank for homosexuals than for "normal" people. That is segregation and people have spent thousands of years fighting against that for good reason. I am not slating you personally just your opinions as I disagree strongly.

NickInTheNorth
17-Apr-08, 22:15
rather than an age old prejudice against a lifestyle choice.

I deliberately used the phrase "lifestyle choice" as all individuals of any gender are able to choose their own preferred sexual practises - regardless of sexual orientation.

benji
17-Apr-08, 22:16
Ah well. Its good to see so many people who have no real understanding of being homosexual have such indepth knowledge of why "they" shouldn't give blood.

Let me explain it from the point of view of one of "them". I have been in a stable, monoganous relationship for 10 years. Prior to that I only had a few partners. I have never had a STD, have ALWAYS practiced safe sex and have a good understanding of what safe sex is and what STD's are (no thanks to my schooling!) - contrary to the majority of my "straight" friends.

I have had a number of bad experiences:
-I am now not allowed to give blood (although there is very minimal risk of any infection)
-I was not allowed a mortgage until I submitted to a HIV test (a horrible experience in itself, but came back negative)
-despite being identified as being a match for someone with leukemia I was removed from the bone marrow donors list (again not undertaken with any sensitivity)

...of course I could have been dishonest and not said I was a homosexual but I was.

Why does my straight friend at work, who has multiple sexual partners per month (and indeed uses the services of a prostitute) and prefers to not use protection ("removes the feeling"), have his blood accepted without question?

The number of HIV/AIDS/STD cases is rising faster in the heterosexual population - surely then all blood should be tested.....surely this is the answer rather than blanket removing part of the population who want to contribute to a resource that is so clearly lacking in supply.

NickInTheNorth
17-Apr-08, 22:18
well said Benji!

mccaugm
17-Apr-08, 22:22
well said Benji!

Ditto...............

Boozeburglar
17-Apr-08, 22:23
abnormal though often natural orientation

A true statement. You can read between the lines, and I often do with PT, but I cannot see the issue with this statement.

Sexual orientation is just one aspect of a human being, no one said a gay person is abnormal, just their sexual preference.

Me I am bisexual, when I can afford it.

:)

balto
18-Apr-08, 07:42
Ah well. Its good to see so many people who have no real understanding of being homosexual have such indepth knowledge of why "they" shouldn't give blood.

Let me explain it from the point of view of one of "them". I have been in a stable, monoganous relationship for 10 years. Prior to that I only had a few partners. I have never had a STD, have ALWAYS practiced safe sex and have a good understanding of what safe sex is and what STD's are (no thanks to my schooling!) - contrary to the majority of my "straight" friends.

I have had a number of bad experiences:
-I am now not allowed to give blood (although there is very minimal risk of any infection)
-I was not allowed a mortgage until I submitted to a HIV test (a horrible experience in itself, but came back negative)
-despite being identified as being a match for someone with leukemia I was removed from the bone marrow donors list (again not undertaken with any sensitivity)

...of course I could have been dishonest and not said I was a homosexual but I was.

Why does my straight friend at work, who has multiple sexual partners per month (and indeed uses the services of a prostitute) and prefers to not use protection ("removes the feeling"), have his blood accepted without question?

The number of HIV/AIDS/STD cases is rising faster in the heterosexual population - surely then all blood should be tested.....surely this is the answer rather than blanket removing part of the population who want to contribute to a resource that is so clearly lacking in supply.
well said benji, think it is high time they over hauled who can and cant give blood.

TBH
18-Apr-08, 09:49
A true statement. You can read between the lines, and I often do with PT, but I cannot see the issue with this statement.

Sexual orientation is just one aspect of a human being, no one said a gay person is abnormal, just their sexual preference.

Me I am bisexual, when I can afford it.

:)Bisexuals and druggies take a lot of the blame for infecting the heterosexual population.

benji
18-Apr-08, 10:44
Bisexuals and druggies take a lot of the blame for infecting the heterosexual population.

Oh dear you must be an angry person to try and "blame" someone.

Presumably following your logic the "heterosexuals" that were infected by these "bisexuals and druggies" were infected either under duress/coercion or were infected unknowingly (not sure which one you think is correct).

So that I am not burgled while I am at work I lock my front door. It is called protection. Everyone should take responsibility for themselves and their own actions - including ensuring protection during sex.

TBH
18-Apr-08, 11:09
Oh dear you must be an angry person to try and "blame" someone.

Presumably following your logic the "heterosexuals" that were infected by these "bisexuals and druggies" were infected either under duress/coercion or were infected unknowingly (not sure which one you think is correct).

So that I am not burgled while I am at work I lock my front door. It is called protection. Everyone should take responsibility for themselves and their own actions - including ensuring protection during sex.Nah, I'm quite happy thanks. see....:D<That's me.
Duress, coercion, did you throw that in for dramatic effect?
Are you trying to say bisexuals are totally blameless in the spread of aids into the heterosexual population? As for the druggies, I take it you can't understand how they manage to help the spread of aids either?

benji
18-Apr-08, 11:27
Nah, I'm quite happy thanks. see....:D<That's me.
Duress, coercion, did you throw that in for dramatic effect?
Are you trying to say bisexuals are totally blameless in the spread of aids into the heterosexual population? As for the druggies, I take it you can't understand how they manage to help the spread of aids either?

I don't use words for dramatic effect, simply to communicate clearly. Lets not reduce this conversation to sillyness.

I notice that you haven't answered my point that you feel that the "heterosexuals" are blameless and that it is all the fault of the "bisexuals and druggies". I do understand how AIDS (and other STD's) is spread and rather than posting "blame" I think that it is much more constructive to look for people taking responsibility for themselves whether they are gay, straight, black, white, Scottish, Mongolian, a bus driver, a baker.....there is (I feel) a general lack for people to take responsibility for their actions (what ever their actions are) in this "phone-lawyers-for-you" culture.

(PS I am gald you are happy!!)

TBH
18-Apr-08, 11:44
I don't use words for dramatic effect, simply to communicate clearly. Lets not reduce this conversation to sillyness.

I notice that you haven't answered my point that you feel that the "heterosexuals" are blameless and that it is all the fault of the "bisexuals and druggies". I do understand how AIDS (and other STD's) is spread and rather than posting "blame" I think that it is much more constructive to look for people taking responsibility for themselves whether they are gay, straight, black, white, Scottish, Mongolian, a bus driver, a baker.....there is (I feel) a general lack for people to take responsibility for their actions (what ever their actions are) in this "phone-lawyers-for-you" culture.

(PS I am gald you are happy!!)It devolved into sillyness with your, "my logic" post about heterosexuals being under duress/coercion to either take drugs or have sex with a bisexual.
You quite correctly feel that people should take responsibility for their own actions but what about the heterosexual that is unknowingly in a relationship with a bisexual, are they to take the blame if they contracted aids because their partner has had unprotected sex with a homosexual.

Solus
18-Apr-08, 11:58
It really shocks me that we still have such fear and prejudice against gays living in our society !

Can i put this to you , if you or one of your loved ones was seriously ill or injured, needed blood asap but were told our stocks are low all we have is blood taken from a gay guy, would you say no ? or would you be thankful that that person or persons has taken the time and effort to provide blood that may indeed save that persons life?


Me, i would be greatful.

benji
18-Apr-08, 11:59
It devolved into sillyness with your, "my logic" post about heterosexuals being under duress/coercion to either take drugs or have sex with a bisexual.
You quite correctly feel that people should take responsibility for their own actions but what about the heterosexual that is unknowingly in a relationship with a bisexual, are they to take the blame if they contracted aids because their partner has had unprotected sex with a homosexual.

I didn't say anything about people being made to take drugs (and as we both know taking drugs does not result automatically being infected with AIDS/STD etc)..... What I did say was that for a person to be infected without their knowledge can only be through two possible routes: unknowingly or by force (ie duress).

Let me clear up a second point. I don't want to apportion balme to anyone but it is up to everyone to take responsibility for thier actions. You cite a situation where one partner is in a monogamous relationship, but the other partner gets infected through a third party. In this situation their respective sexualities are irrelevant. The partner who has become infected has simply not taken responsibility and that is where the problem lies. Apportioning balme will not remedy the situation and (in todays world) is unlikely to make other people take heed. Demonstrating that there are consequences to an action would (I would like to think) make people sit-up and take notice.

In the main I think that we agree although you take it slightly more for a passionate "blame" point-of view and I take it from a "what has gone wrong, and how can we learn from it" view.

(In any case hope you are still happy;)!!)

Boozeburglar
18-Apr-08, 12:42
It really shocks me that we still have such fear and prejudice against gays living in our society !

Can i put this to you , if you or one of your loved ones was seriously ill or injured, needed blood asap but were told our stocks are low all we have is blood taken from a gay guy, would you say no ? or would you be thankful that that person or persons has taken the time and effort to provide blood that may indeed save that persons life?


Me, i would be greatful.

Hi Solus,

I think if you look at the thread closely you will see that there is not a majority of real fear and prejudice in evidence. Things arre changing as time goes on.

In that situation one would likely accept blood from a person just of the plane from Sub-Saharan Africa as well, so does that analogy really tell us anything? Seems you are proposing a choice between certain death and accepting a transfer of possibly contaminated blood. I am not a betting man, but the better choice seems obvious!

I too would be grateful, of course. And worried.

For now it is the advice of experts in the field, and I am not, that gay men should be excluded. I am certain their views are pragmatic, and not based on meaningless prejudice.

That is good enough for me.

:)

mccaugm
18-Apr-08, 13:38
It really shocks me that we still have such fear and prejudice against gays living in our society !

Can i put this to you , if you or one of your loved ones was seriously ill or injured, needed blood asap but were told our stocks are low all we have is blood taken from a gay guy, would you say no ? or would you be thankful that that person or persons has taken the time and effort to provide blood that may indeed save that persons life?


Me, i would be greatful.

I would be delighted as blood is blood whoever gives it. They do it of their own free will.

scotsboy
18-Apr-08, 14:06
I am not able to Give Blood here in the Middle East, the reason being that I have lived in Europe and eaten red meat within the last 15 years or so.

TBH
18-Apr-08, 14:30
It really shocks me that we still have such fear and prejudice against gays living in our society ! I was wondering when someone was going to play the homophobic card.


Can i put this to you , if you or one of your loved ones was seriously ill or injured, needed blood asap but were told our stocks are low all we have is blood taken from a gay guy, would you say no ? or would you be thankful that that person or persons has taken the time and effort to provide blood that may indeed save that persons life?


Me, i would be greatful.If the said loved one received blood that was screened successfuly and that loved one was later found to have been infected with the HIV virus would you be so grateful then?
I doubt very much if the medical profession could be accused of homophobia because they wont accept blood from homosexuals rather they are protecting the human rights of the person that would receive the blood donation. HIV is predominant in the homosexual community, that is why they are excluded, not for any other reason and until there are accurate screening methods then they should remain so.

benji
18-Apr-08, 15:27
I was wondering when someone was going to play the homophobic card.

If the said loved one received blood that was screened successfuly and that loved one was later found to have been infected with the HIV virus would you be so grateful then?
I doubt very much if the medical profession could be accused of homophobia because they wont accept blood from homosexuals rather they are protecting the human rights of the person that would receive the blood donation. HIV is predominant in the homosexual community, that is why they are excluded, not for any other reason and until there are accurate screening methods then they should remain so.

...and you could in turn be accused of playing the "Human rights" card.

It might also be worth remembering that being HIV+ is not a death sentence or the end. Far from it. While you should naturally be a lot more careful and be aware of your status (and disclose it to the like of your dentist) then there is no real reason that you should not lead a normal healthy life.

HIV is not predominant in the homosexual community anymore, historically yes but you'll find percentage wise that the infection rate amongst heterosexuals is worse.

If we want a 100% infection-free blood bank (if such a thing is possible) then we are also looking at removing people who have eaten beef in the last 15 years (vCJD), people who have back packed (Hep A, B, C, Yellow Fever) etc etc etc. Remember that simply stopping someone from giving blood a while after they have back packed around the world doesn't mean that you stop the transmission of something like Hep C. Hep C will stay in your system for life and may or may not flare-up.

Lets look at the realistic situation. So now we have a situation where we have a person who needs life saving blood. Even if that screened blood has managed to get through contaminated (from whatever source) with HIV - which is better:
1. The person dies quickly in hospital because the infected blood is refused, or,
2. They lead a realitively normal life, taking precautions not to infect anyone else, have regular check-ups and may or may not take drugs to control the infection.

PS I have, and have known other people to have, suffered from homophobia at the hands of the medical profession

scotsboy
18-Apr-08, 16:09
I have to disagree Benji. It has nothing to do with being homophobic, it has everything to do with the prevention of transmission of infection - which not only includes HIV but also malaria, glandular fever and even the common cold. It is not only homosexuals who are "discriminated" against, I think prostitutes (and those who use the services of prostitutes), those who have had piercings/tattoos etc are also on the list.

As you allude to - it is better to have as infection free a supply as possible.

percy toboggan
18-Apr-08, 17:52
A true statement. You can read between the lines, and I often do with PT, but I cannot see the issue with this statement.

Sexual orientation is just one aspect of a human being, no one said a gay person is abnormal, just their sexual preference.



Boozeburglar , you are emerging as one of the frontrunners in the thinking stakes...you also take time to read words properly and have the intelligence to interpret them correctly...I'm not patronising you and please do not take umbrage. The skills to which I refer are far from normal believe you me ..

However, ...how far in between my lines does one have to read to understand what 'not normal but natural' really means?
Homosexuality is a natural condition, but thankfully it's not normal.....there are some who would like to see it compulsory perhaps....but it will never be 'normal' . To describe it as 'abnormal ' sounds a little harsh to some...language can be cruel at times , but the term is factually correct.

I can understand the mindset of unassuming, basically decent homosexual men who, having come to terms with the oddity of their plight then take umbrage at being called 'abnormal' . This is unavoidable...we can invent another euphemism...or corrupt another word like 'GAY' and put a gloss upon it, and ameliorate our emotions on the matter..which range from violent hostility to positive encouragement. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.

These fellows should rise above the criticism..learn to live with it...get on with the life they choose or are orientated towards and hopefully be happy.
What they should avoid...please...is trying to convince the rest of us that we are all one ilk...and must thus swim happily together against the tide of life's travails.

They are different...their blood has a higher risk of contamination...if conventional homosexual practices are followed then the risk of blood transfer via mucous membranes are very real...The people who know...the experts, the haematologists and the people who run the National Blood Transfusion Service are not stupid...we should trust their judgement.

Boozeburglar
18-Apr-08, 18:25
you'll find percentage wise that the infection rate amongst heterosexuals is worse.

The total number of recorded and estimated infections is somewhat higher in the heterosexual population. This is purely as a result of the heterosexual population being the majority, by more than a factor of ten. The risk factor is massively greater amongst homosexuals.

(The increase in infection rates amongst the heterosexual population is levelling off too; as the rate amongst gay men did.)

Also, regarding this specific thread; one other large at risk groups is excluded from giving blood (SSA), so the figures are actually skewed even further in favour of heterosexuals as a much lower risk group when we make a comparison of risk and eliminate the Sub-Saharans from the argument.

Please read some more before posting misleading information, especially as you have set yourself up as somewhat of an expert on this. Complacency costs lives, and there may be impressionable young gay men reading this who would like to believe they can forget the risks.


PS I have, and have known other people to have, suffered from homophobia at the hands of the medical profession

I hope you and the others you know took advantage of the complaints process.

Personally I have never heard of any discrimination of this sort; but accept it exists.

Choosing not to accept blood donation from the highest risk group does not seem prejudicial to me.

In my experience, which has involved working with the Terrence Higgins Trust and Lighthouse, encountering a number of HIV specialists working in the area of HIV Awareness as well as living and working alongside gay colleagues and friends/family; I never heard any of them complain of any kind of discrimination from a professional. Of course, I was working in London and Manchester, and none of said people have to deal with the backward facing rural healthcare we have up here!

karia
18-Apr-08, 18:34
They are different...their blood has a higher risk of contamination...if conventional homosexual practices are followed then the risk of blood transfer via mucous membranes are very real...The people who know...the experts, the haematologists and the people who run the National Blood Transfusion Service are not stupid...we should trust their judgement.

Without wishing to get into graphic detail here......the practices referred to above are hardly the exclusive preserve of homosexuals.

Or so I am told by my worldlier friends.;)

Oh and their blood doesn't have a higher risk of contamination..it's just the same as our blood.:)

percy toboggan
18-Apr-08, 18:52
[quote=karia;374786Or so I am told by my worldlier friends....

...Oh and their blood doesn't have a higher risk of contamination..it's just the same as our blood.[/quote]

Your first point confirms - for the unworldly - what most contributors to this thread will have known already. I took it for granted actually...sorry.

Second point: no it's not...that's why the experts don't want it.
Neither do I...but, no man is an island...and if I was haemorrhaging to death & there was no alternative then I'd willingly take the risk...after all, I'm not stupid.

honey
18-Apr-08, 19:08
Without wishing to get into graphic detail here......the practices referred to above are hardly the exclusive preserve of homosexuals.


i was just about to say the same thing!!!

_Ju_
18-Apr-08, 19:15
If the said loved one received blood that was screened successfuly and that loved one was later found to have been infected with the HIV virus would you be so grateful then?


I would be furious. I would be furious that there was a serious failure during testing of the blood. Tests that should (and are) carried out on all blood donated, irrespective of wether the donor claims to be a nun or whatever. Humans are human and fail, which is why all blood is repeatedly tested before being used (at least blood collected in Europe). Accurate high sensitivity screening tests are used to detect not only antibodies, but the antigene itself and nuclear acids. False positives are hugely more likely than false negatives. It is highly unlikely that HIV positive blood collected and tested in Europe would be screened as negative ( I wouldn't trust blood or blood products from any other country, including those that pay for donations such as the USA). It has to be highly unlikely to maintain public confidence in blood banks. The HUGE fault will have been of the screening and not the donor, who will not as yet know they are infected ( unless you a proposing they would have purposely donated knowing they are positive?).

As for the infected bloods origins: again I say that heterosexual people get HIV too (more and more). The risk behaviour is not being a homosexual but having casual sex, especially with multiple partners and especially without protection, irrespective of wether the people they choose to behave with in this way are of the same sex or not. Heck, doesn't that describe a huge proportion of youths nowadays? It's a question of time for HIV/AIDS to attain a comparable proportion of heterosexuals infected with this virus. I wonder if then the questionaire for blood donors will give heterosexual risk behaviour the same weight they indiscriminately place on homosexuals.


PS: The screening is blind and the assumption is that all blood is positive untill proven negative. All blood passes the same rigorous testing. So after effective screening all negative blood is equally negative, irrespective of sexual preference.

karia
18-Apr-08, 19:19
Your first point confirms - for the unworldly - what most contributors to this thread will have known already. I took it for granted actually...sorry.

Second point: no it's not...that's why the experts don't want it.
Neither do I...but, no man is an island...and if I was haemorrhaging to death & there was no alternative then I'd willingly take the risk...after all, I'm not stupid.


Have really tried with that post Percy but whatever you are saying here eludes me.:confused

Feel free to be as simplistic as you wish..maybe I am having a blonde night.:D

To reiterate..certain sexual practices make transferral of contaminated blood easier..these practices are also common to many in the heterosexual community and it would be foolish to believe otherwise.

Recent increases in HIV infection have been very largely within the heterosexual population.

Blood is either contaminated or not..not type B negative!

Solus
18-Apr-08, 19:19
There are people who lead far more promiscous lives than many a gay person does, those with " alternative lifestyles " who are in a higher risk bracket than gay people. Some young folk are very promiscous, not even practicing safe sex ! we dont see them being turned away from giving blood.

And TBH, if one of my loved ones was urgently needing blood, and it came from a gay person and it later turned out they got infected from this, its a chance I took to save that persons life. Something is better than nothing !

golach
18-Apr-08, 19:27
As for the infected bloods origins: again I say that heterosexual people get HIV too (more and more). The risk behaviour is not being a homosexual but having casual sex, especially with multiple partners and especially without protection, irrespective of wether the people they choose to behave with in this way are of the same sex or not. Heck, doesn't that describe a huge proportion of youths nowadays? It's a question of time for HIV/AIDS to attain a comparable proportion of heterosexuals infected with this virus. I wonder if then the questionaire for blood donors will give heterosexual risk behaviour the same weight they indiscriminately place on homosexuals.
Ju, once again a well thought out reply, I am barred from giving blood, not because I am homosexual (Thank Goodness) but because I contracted Jaundice at an early age, so therefore I am banned, quiet rightly so, I would hate to have put another human being at risk by donating my contaminated blood which has Hepatitis A in it.
I think the Homosexual community should just accept this ruling as it is there to stop the risk of contamination nothing else. It is not another so called infringement of their human rights

percy toboggan
18-Apr-08, 19:33
Have really tried with that post Percy but whatever you are saying here eludes me.:confused

Feel free to be as simplistic as you wish..maybe I am having a blonde night.:D



Nah..it's weekend, and my wife is wondering where I am !
I've said enough...at least I know what I mean...which is a bonus these days.
Have a good un.

karia
18-Apr-08, 19:45
Nah..it's weekend, and my wife is wondering where I am !
I've said enough...at least I know what I mean...which is a bonus these days.
Have a good un.

You too Percy!:)

benji
18-Apr-08, 20:31
Reading the replies since my last posting would I be correct in thinking that people would be keen to remove people of an African origin from the list of people who can give blood? 61% of the new cases of AIDS in the UK in 2006 were via heterosexual acts and the majority were in people of an African origin.

Also since 43% of new cases were in people living in London, should we not remove Londoners from the list?

Peeple seem to be keen to remove high risk groups. These two facts alone seem to prove that these two groups should be removed.

...and yet reading the list of replies no-one has answered my question:

Why am I barred from giving blood when I live a careful monogamous life and yet my straight friend who has multiple different partners each month can? Whose blood would you rather get?

benji
18-Apr-08, 20:34
I have to disagree Benji. It has nothing to do with being homophobic, it has everything to do with the prevention of transmission of infection - which not only includes HIV but also malaria, glandular fever and even the common cold. It is not only homosexuals who are "discriminated" against, I think prostitutes (and those who use the services of prostitutes), those who have had piercings/tattoos etc are also on the list.

As you allude to - it is better to have as infection free a supply as possible.

Please note that I have never used the word homophobic. But you raise anoher interesting point. If a luekmia suffer was getting a blood transmission and it was infected with the cold then that could put them at serious risk - should we stop people who have had the cold from giving blood?

honey
18-Apr-08, 20:38
Why am I barred from giving blood when I live a careful monogamous life and yet my straight friend who has multiple different partners each month can? Whose blood would you rather get?

im lost at that too Benji. [disgust]

benji
18-Apr-08, 20:43
The total number of recorded and estimated infections is somewhat higher in the heterosexual population. This is purely as a result of the heterosexual population being the majority, by more than a factor of ten. The risk factor is massively greater amongst homosexuals.

(The increase in infection rates amongst the heterosexual population is levelling off too; as the rate amongst gay men did.)

Also, regarding this specific thread; one other large at risk groups is excluded from giving blood (SSA), so the figures are actually skewed even further in favour of heterosexuals as a much lower risk group when we make a comparison of risk and eliminate the Sub-Saharans from the argument.

Please read some more before posting misleading information, especially as you have set yourself up as somewhat of an expert on this. Complacency costs lives, and there may be impressionable young gay men reading this who would like to believe they can forget the risks.



I hope you and the others you know took advantage of the complaints process.

Personally I have never heard of any discrimination of this sort; but accept it exists.

Choosing not to accept blood donation from the highest risk group does not seem prejudicial to me.

In my experience, which has involved working with the Terrence Higgins Trust and Lighthouse, encountering a number of HIV specialists working in the area of HIV Awareness as well as living and working alongside gay colleagues and friends/family; I never heard any of them complain of any kind of discrimination from a professional. Of course, I was working in London and Manchester, and none of said people have to deal with the backward facing rural healthcare we have up here!

..and I would ask you to read my postings carefully - as you will see I was strongly advocating that people should take personal responsibility for their actions - not to devolve it onto other people. The risk factor amongst homosexuals is NOT massively greater if the appropriate protection or avoidance of dangerous practices is understood and acted upon. To assume that I am gay and therefore am at much greater risk of catching AIDS is incorrect. I have never (nor will) place myself at risk, I undertand the dangers and protect myself from them.

I didn't make use of the complaints process after running into problems with the medical profession (in a major Scottish city) - what is the point if they think along the lines of some of the language that has been posted here!

percy toboggan
18-Apr-08, 21:16
Reading the replies since my last posting would I be correct in thinking that people would be keen to remove people of an African origin from the list of people who can give blood? 61% of the new cases of AIDS in the UK in 2006 were via heterosexual acts and the majority were in people of an African origin.



Yes , you'd be absolutely right in thinking that.
No African blood required unless the direst of circumstances pertain.
Chinese blood...Pakistani blood...Indian blood wecome.
(he added, heading off the predictable racist jibes)

Not that I see queues of African folk waiting to give blood in our clinics.
Probably because it's not a financial transaction yet, prasie be.

Common knowledge that most African transmission is via heterosexual use of the back door. Cultural birth control preference of the poor..ie...almost everybody.

karia
18-Apr-08, 21:25
Not that I see queues of African folk waiting to give blood in our clinics.
Probably because it's not a financial transaction yet, prasie be.

Common knowledge that most African transmission is via heterosexual use of the back door. Cultural birth control preference of the poor..ie...almost everybody.

What an interesting spin to put on it..how long have you been doing this important research for the blood transfusion people?

How many African folks have you spoken to who would give blood if it was paid for..as you suggest?

percy toboggan
18-Apr-08, 21:41
What an interesting spin to put on it..how long have you been doing this important research for the blood transfusion people?

How many African folks have you spoken to who would give blood if it was paid for..as you suggest?

I was approached by two large African men in the Trafford Park area only last week. I was sat, parked by the kerbside enjoying a bacon buttie.They were on their break from counting corn flakes at Kellogg's and were looking for the nearest blood donation centre. I told them I had no idea where it was as I had never, ever given blood myself, ....apart from small samples for various diagnostic testing. At first they shook their heads collectively in a universal expression of disaproval. I felt a pang of shame.

Trying to salvage some respectability I told them it seemed an awful lot of trouble for the sake of a cup of tea and a digestive biscuit. Although mildly intrigued by 'digestives' they soon realised no money was involved and lost interest. We ended up going to the local pub for a blather, I bought them two halves of shandy apiece and we had a good laugh. They found my re-telling of the famous Tony Hancock sketch most amusing. Although they didn't see merely a full pint as an armful...in fact when they reckoned their own anatomical capacities as they saw them I left the boozer feeling somewhat inferior.

karia
18-Apr-08, 21:51
I was approached by two large African men in the Trafford Park area only last week. I was sat, parked by the kerbside enjoying a bacon buttie.They were on their break from counting corn flakes at Kellogg's and were looking for the nearest blood donation centre. I told them I had no idea where it was as I had never, ever given blood myself, ....apart from small samples for various diagnostic testing. At first they shook their heads collectively in a universal expression of disaproval. I felt a pang of shame.

Trying to salvage some respectability I told them it seemed an awful lot of trouble for the sake of a cup of tea and a digestive biscuit. Although mildly intrigued by 'digestives' they soon realised no money was involved and lost interest. We ended up going to the local pub for a blather, I bought them two halves of shandy apiece and we had a good laugh. They found my re-telling of the famous Tony Hancock sketch most amusing. Although they didn't see merely a full pint as an armful...in fact when they reckoned their own anatomical capacities as they saw them I left the boozer feeling somewhat inferior.


Haaaaaa!:lol:

where have'nt I heard that one before?!!:roll:

Boozeburglar
18-Apr-08, 22:15
..and I would ask you to read my postings carefully - as you will see I was strongly advocating that people should take personal responsibility for their actions - not to devolve it onto other people.

Never suggested otherwise, good for you. When will you start reading my posts? Half of the points you are making have already been answered.


The risk factor amongst homosexuals is NOT massively greater if the appropriate protection or avoidance of dangerous practices is understood and acted upon.

WRONG. Like for like, given the same protection, the increased risk remains with the male homosexual. This is a legacy effect, we are talking here about the group.

Were there a group in the heterosexual population that, during the time HIV has been epidemic, only selected sexual partners from a similar small percentage of the population, (and for some reason they used identical sexual practises), we would see a very similar risk level attached to that group.


To assume that I am gay and therefore am at much greater risk of catching AIDS is incorrect.

To assume that you as an individual are more likely to become HIV positive, (you don't 'catch' AIDS), is wrong of course, (you could be a gay virgin), but to assume that about homosexual men as a whole is perfectly justified, given it is the truth.


I have never (nor will) place myself at risk, I undertand the dangers and protect myself from them.

Again, good for you, you understand the dangers to some extent it might seem, though not fully as apparent by your insistence on denying accepted statistics linked in this thread, and the terminology you have used.


I didn't make use of the complaints process after running into problems with the medical profession (in a major Scottish city) - what is the point if they think along the lines of some of the language that has been posted here!

More fool you then; for it is people like you that allow that culture of ignorance to remain. I just feel sorry for the next people at the hands of the bigots you encountered who may have complained but had it laughed off because there was no history of complaints.

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/menwithmen/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/menwithmen/)

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/heterosexual/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/heterosexual/)

Please read these links at least twice. You seem to be stubbornly avoiding the statistics, no one else is ignoring the facts other than the idiots campaigning against perfectly reasonable measures to protect the public at large from a deadly disease. Yes, still deadly disease.

In reiteration: unless they are to undertake an individual lifestyle study of each single potential donor they have to use groupings.

I don't dispute you may be as safe bet as an individual, but as part of a group you are not. I pointed this out earlier in the thread, get over it.

Most of the recent African immigrants will not pass the basic requirements to give blood, and are thus already excluded. A good number of theses people live in London, skewing the statistics, but there is of course also a large gay population and a generally young population there, (higher risk group). Any of the London population who do not match the requirements will exclude themselves from giving blood. Of course people can lie, just like an indignant man who has had sex with another man could withhold this and give blood regardless.

I already posted regarding these current exclusions. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, and read up generally before you continue on your crusade to educate us all.

percy toboggan
18-Apr-08, 22:20
Haaaaaa!

where have'nt I heard that one before?!!:roll:

Oh no...really...I was busy congratulating myself on some original wit.:confused
In short supply around 'ere.
Oh well, back to the drawing board...and off to me kip.

karia
18-Apr-08, 22:25
Oh no...really...I was busy congratulating myself on some original wit.:confused
In short supply around 'ere.
Oh well, back to the drawing board...and off to me kip.

I think you promised that earlier.but back you came!;)

Boozeburglar
18-Apr-08, 22:25
Yes , you'd be absolutely right in thinking that.
No African blood required unless the direst of circumstances pertain.
Chinese blood...Pakistani blood...Indian blood wecome.
(he added, heading off the predictable racist jibes)

Not that I see queues of African folk waiting to give blood in our clinics.
Probably because it's not a financial transaction yet, prasie be.

Common knowledge that most African transmission is via heterosexual use of the back door. Cultural birth control preference of the poor..ie...almost everybody.

Percy, dude, I would want to check the statistics before you take an armful of Indian Red.

You won't get a choice when you get your blood, so it is a moot point anyway. A safe arm full of African will do just the same job as a safe arm full of Mancunian.

It is certainly not racist to be afraid of taking blood from a high risk source.

Who would ever have thought you would be capable of such a thing!

:)

benji
19-Apr-08, 11:12
Never suggested otherwise, good for you. When will you start reading my posts? Half of the points you are making have already been answered.



WRONG. Like for like, given the same protection, the increased risk remains with the male homosexual. This is a legacy effect, we are talking here about the group.

Were there a group in the heterosexual population that, during the time HIV has been epidemic, only selected sexual partners from a similar small percentage of the population, (and for some reason they used identical sexual practises), we would see a very similar risk level attached to that group.



To assume that you as an individual are more likely to become HIV positive, (you don't 'catch' AIDS), is wrong of course, (you could be a gay virgin), but to assume that about homosexual men as a whole is perfectly justified, given it is the truth.



Again, good for you, you understand the dangers to some extent it might seem, though not fully as apparent by your insistence on denying accepted statistics linked in this thread, and the terminology you have used.



More fool you then; for it is people like you that allow that culture of ignorance to remain. I just feel sorry for the next people at the hands of the bigots you encountered who may have complained but had it laughed off because there was no history of complaints.

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/menwithmen/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/menwithmen/)

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/heterosexual/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/heterosexual/)

Please read these links at least twice. You seem to be stubbornly avoiding the statistics, no one else is ignoring the facts other than the idiots campaigning against perfectly reasonable measures to protect the public at large from a deadly disease. Yes, still deadly disease.

In reiteration: unless they are to undertake an individual lifestyle study of each single potential donor they have to use groupings.

I don't dispute you may be as safe bet as an individual, but as part of a group you are not. I pointed this out earlier in the thread, get over it.

Most of the recent African immigrants will not pass the basic requirements to give blood, and are thus already excluded. A good number of theses people live in London, skewing the statistics, but there is of course also a large gay population and a generally young population there, (higher risk group). Any of the London population who do not match the requirements will exclude themselves from giving blood. Of course people can lie, just like an indignant man who has had sex with another man could withhold this and give blood regardless.

I already posted regarding these current exclusions. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, and read up generally before you continue on your crusade to educate us all.

Couple of clarifiactions:

-I have raised a complaint about the way my AIDS test was handled by the mortgage lender and this was dismissed via a single paragraph letter - hardly giving me confidence in how seriously the medical profession takes these issues, why should I then complain to the same profession about a second problem...once bitten twice shy
-I think we need to agree to disagree on the fact that you feel that my blood (as an individual) is worth less than that of someone else because of a certain "group" I belong to, not because of the way that I act, simply that I belong to that group. You are looking at siloing people and are not looking at the individual, while that has merits I still feel bad. I wanted to help someone with leukemia, I am fit and healthy yet I was (uncerimoniously) dismissed because I was responsible enough to alert them to the fact that I was gay (I had to tell them I was gay (ie I volunterred the information) after the blood test!!!!)
-my apologies if I have not used the terminology you would have liked me to use - please read some of the other posts in here for a flavour of the language that I was pitching my replys against
-I do feel that relying on (certain) statistics as a single reason for basing a policy on is flawed, my argument is not based soley on statistics but no one yet in these series of postings has provided an argument based on anything else than statistics

Boozeburglar
19-Apr-08, 12:41
relying on (certain) statistics as a single reason for basing a policy on is flawed, my argument is not based soley on statistics but no one yet in these series of postings has provided an argument based on anything else than statistics

Your opinion of course, but it seems you are completely unable to grasp the facts of the matter.

Can you explain why statistics should be secondary in assessing risk?

By the way, people who already have an HIV positive status have tests to see if their status changes.

Generally speaking it is an HIV test you are referring to, it is an important distinction. Why do you keep calling it an AIDS test?

You have suggested you are well informed, where is the evidence?

percy toboggan
19-Apr-08, 17:10
Benji : you seem keen to paint yourself as a victim in this. All that is happening here is that experts have deemed your place in society is a little more vulnerable than most others. There can be no individual appraisal of each and everybody's sexual behaviour...how intrusive would that be?

It's a bit like an insurance policy isn't it...generalisations have to be made. The good, attentive young driver gets lumped in with the reckless boy racers when it comes to assesing their premiums. Statisics are the only factor which can be applied here, as subjective opinion varies between individuals. Health professionals have a duty of care and need to err on the side of safety.

I'm sure nobody thinks any less of you for not being able to give blood.I really can't understand what the fuss is all about.
I'm partially colour blind & if this affliction de-barred me from donating I'd soon get over it....not that I'm suggesting homosexuality is an 'affliction'...unless you want to make it one.

Perhaps you really want to live up to the G.A.Y. - good as you acronym..is this what's eating you up?

TBH
19-Apr-08, 18:06
Benji : you seem keen to paint yourself as a victim in this. All that is happening here is that experts have deemed your place in society is a little more vulnerable than most others. There can be no individual appraisal of each and everybody's sexual behaviour...how intrusive would that be?

It's a bit like an insurance policy isn't it...generalisations have to be made. The good, attentive young driver gets lumped in with the reckless boy racers when it comes to assesing their premiums. Statisics are the only factor which can be applied here, as subjective opinion varies between individuals. Health professionals have a duty of care and need to err on the side of safety.

I'm sure nobody thinks any less of you for not being able to give blood.I really can't understand what the fuss is all about.
I'm partially colour blind & if this affliction de-barred me from donating I'd soon get over it....not that I'm suggesting homosexuality is an 'affliction'...unless you want to make it one.

Perhaps you really want to live up to the G.A.Y. - good as you acronym..is this what's eating you up?Good analogy Percy, young drivers are indeed discriminated against because they are classed as being in a high risk group no matter how good the driving skills of individual drivers. I am sure the policy of who can give blood is reviewed and if cases of HIV in male homosexuals decrease to an acceptable level then things will change until that time then they have to realise that such legislation is in place to protect people from receiving a transfusion of contaminated blood not for any ulterior motive, i.e, homophobia.

Moi x
19-Apr-08, 21:42
There are many issues involved here and it's easy to mix them up and get confused. I'll use the estimates published here (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.avert.org/stats.htm).
41520 or 45% of all HIV infections in the UK to date were acquired via sex between men and men.
39445 or 42% of all HIV infections in the UK to date were acquired via sex between men and women.
2145 or 42% of all HIV infections in 2007 were acquired via sex between men and men.
2732 or 54% of all HIV infections in 2007 were acquired via sex between men and women.These percentages are all close to 50% and this makes a simple minded risk analysis somewhat easier.

Let's assume that 5% of the population is male and gay. I don't know whether this is true but someone stated it on this thread and it doesn't contradict figures I've seen previously. Let's also make the approximation that all the percentages in the bulleted statements are 50%.

Assuming sexually active gay men give blood at the same rate as heterosexuals and gay women, and that all sets are equally (dis)honest, etc, etc, allowing gay men to donate blood will increase the total blood supply by 5% whilst doubling the risk that a random sample of donated blood will be infected.

Is the risk worth taking? Naively:
If the blood isn't screened at all before use then the answer is a fairly unequivocal 'no' unless the infection rate is so small that no-one is likely to be infected by contaminated blood.
If screening is 100% effective then the result is an unequivocal 'yes' because there is zero chance that infected blood will be used.The problem is that no screening process is 100% effective so any ineffectiveness will double the likelhood that any given blood sample is infected. This is not a risk worth taking unless the screening process has never been known to fail or if blood supplies are so low that more people will die by keeping the status quo than by changing it.

To go further we need more information on the efficacy of the screening process, blood supply shortages, etc. Without this, I would recommend that no changes should be made to current regulations. I would guess further information will not change this conclusion.

Moi x

benji
20-Apr-08, 18:22
Your opinion of course, but it seems you are completely unable to grasp the facts of the matter.

Can you explain why statistics should be secondary in assessing risk?

By the way, people who already have an HIV positive status have tests to see if their status changes.

Generally speaking it is an HIV test you are referring to, it is an important distinction. Why do you keep calling it an AIDS test?

You have suggested you are well informed, where is the evidence?

Re stats: see the posting above, you can make statistics say what you want, I'd rather backup my arguments with facts and logic (note that I am not saying that statistics should be secondary in nature).

You are of course, entitled to your opinion as to how well informed I am. It might be best for you to come down from the high horse until you get to know me a little better. Having had contact with the THT doesn't necessarily make you an expert either.

Personally I would rather not make this a oneupmanship argument and have to start to trade personal insults.




Benji : you seem keen to paint yourself as a victim in this. All that is happening here is that experts have deemed your place in society is a little more vulnerable than most others. There can be no individual appraisal of each and everybody's sexual behaviour...how intrusive would that be?

It's a bit like an insurance policy isn't it...generalisations have to be made. The good, attentive young driver gets lumped in with the reckless boy racers when it comes to assesing their premiums. Statisics are the only factor which can be applied here, as subjective opinion varies between individuals. Health professionals have a duty of care and need to err on the side of safety.

I'm sure nobody thinks any less of you for not being able to give blood.I really can't understand what the fuss is all about.
I'm partially colour blind & if this affliction de-barred me from donating I'd soon get over it....not that I'm suggesting homosexuality is an 'affliction'...unless you want to make it one.

Perhaps you really want to live up to the G.A.Y. - good as you acronym..is this what's eating you up?


Hey don't even get me strated on driving insurance! The number of bad drivers who would in the eyes of the insurers be in the "safe" category is a joke....

I am not a victim, the poor sole lying on a bed waiting for a kidney is the victim. I do find it hard to accept that because I belong to a certain group I am discriminated against. The original posting talked about my "lifestyle" being "tolerated", with following postings using such language as: "homo's bending over backwards", "zealots" "abnormal though often natural orientation" (perhaps minority would be a less inflamitory word than abnormal), "Bisexuals and druggies take a lot of the blame for infecting the heterosexual population.", "oddity of their plight " "No African blood required unless the direst of circumstances pertain". It is this language (to be honest) that I take most offense at, alongside the "I am straight and I know better than you" attitude.

As for being intrusive in my bedroom antics - people assuming that I get involved in all sorts in the bedroom is pretty intrusive!

To be honest I don't give a fig about what other people think - however I do have a sense of duty and would like to contirubute to society. If I was infected with some blood-transmissible disease then I would take the responsibility to ensure that I woulod infect anyone else. Even if I did put myself at risk of acquiring something then I would take the responsibility to ensure that I wouldn't potentially pass anything on. I wouldn't expect you to understand what the fuss is all about, sometime I might bore you with my story about mortgage life insurance or my exit interview from my last job to give you flavour of why it is often diffuicult to deal with these issues in a sensible, grown-up way.

Right that is my last word.

scotsboy
20-Apr-08, 19:17
I don't see that you are discriminated against at all.

percy toboggan
20-Apr-08, 21:02
Well, I hope you contribute to other threads, even if you're done with this one. You seem a decent enough bloke.

The terminology you mention in your second paragraph, is I'd imagine quite mild compared to what has been written in the past about your minority.
Times are changing, even auld trumpers like me are re-adjusting attitudes, slowly.
Some things cannot change overnight and mental outlook pales into insignificance alongside public safety. If your peers were more like you have described yourself to be then maybe the prejudice you perceive could fall away more quickly.

Moi x
25-Apr-08, 23:42
Re stats: see the posting above, you can make statistics say what you want, I'd rather backup my arguments with facts and logic (note that I am not saying that statistics should be secondary in nature).You may have had your last word but I haven't.

Yes, you can put slants on the interpretation of statistics but I looked up facts and used logic to arrive at what I reckon is the correct conclusion. If I'd wanted to slant the conclusions in a homophobic direction I would have said

Assuming sexually active gay men give blood at the same rate as heterosexuals and gay women, and that all sets are equally (dis)honest, etc, etc, then allowing gay men to donate blood will mean that you are 20 times more likely to become HIV positive from a gay man's blood than from a heterosexual's or gay woman's blood.

I believe this statement to be correct but it's only part of the risk analysis I sketched above and it's misleading without the rest of the reasoning.

I was inclined to support your case after your first post on this thread. Then I looked at the numbers and analysed them 'logically'. I concluded that I would recommend the status quo unless the likelihood of an error in the screening process is vanishingly small.

Last but not least, I recommend that you try not to pick fights with your natural allies.

Moi x

Whitewater
26-Apr-08, 01:04
Do they take blood from Aberdeen supporters?