By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath said:
Serious_frusting said:
Rath said:
 


AIDs is much much more prevalent amongst men who have sex with men in the developed world. That is simple fact. To not use that information simply because some people see it as discriminatory would risk infecting people with HIV.

Couldnt word it better myself.

i am going to have to keep this short because my views may upset a few people, but i think the is no need to change the british law and if so make it at least a 2 year waiting period. Just to make sure. But to be honest i feel a lot more comfortable knowing that kind of blood is floating around in hospitals. Hence a life ban is better.


There is no real need for a life ban as the article states. There is no significant increase in risk in blood donated by a man who has not had sex with men in the past year than from another member of the population. This decision should be made based on what science indicates is safest in terms of the donated blood.

I don't really think he particularly cares. He just doesn't want 'gay blood' in him, and quite frankly I hope he doesn't get any 'gay blood' if he ever needs any blood desperately. Would only be fair.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)