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

Forums - General Discussion - Gay blood donations ban likely to be lifted in UK

sapphi_snake on 08 September 2011
Faxanadu said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
 

Aren't they supposed to test the blood anyways? Honestly, this seems like racial profiling, only even more stupid.


They do test the blood. If you read the OP you'd see that there is a period of time after catching HIV that it cannot be detected in the blood.

And taking blood from a straight person and saying 'oh, this person's straight and AIDS is a gay disease, so I'm sure we can use it with no worries' is such a good ideea. This is just another case of demeaning gay people.


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.

Dont try to use reason, statistics and facts with people that moralise.

Homophobia is irrational, so you're one to talk.



"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)

Around the Network
Rath on 08 September 2011
sapphi_snake 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.

I think that situation is more specific to the US than other places.


This news article is for the UK where, like the US, men who have sex with men are far more likely to catch HIV.



sapphi_snake on 08 September 2011
Rath said:
sapphi_snake 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.

I think that situation is more specific to the US than other places.


This news article is for the UK where, like the US, men who have sex with men are far more likely to catch HIV.

Man, the UK just seems to be a clone of the US in all aspects.



"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)

Serious_frusting on 08 September 2011
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
 

Aren't they supposed to test the blood anyways? Honestly, this seems like racial profiling, only even more stupid.


They do test the blood. If you read the OP you'd see that there is a period of time after catching HIV that it cannot be detected in the blood.

And taking blood from a straight person and saying 'oh, this person's straight and AIDS is a gay disease, so I'm sure we can use it with no worries' is such a good ideea. This is just another case of demeaning gay people.


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.



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Faxanadu on 08 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Faxanadu said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
 

Aren't they supposed to test the blood anyways? Honestly, this seems like racial profiling, only even more stupid.


They do test the blood. If you read the OP you'd see that there is a period of time after catching HIV that it cannot be detected in the blood.

And taking blood from a straight person and saying 'oh, this person's straight and AIDS is a gay disease, so I'm sure we can use it with no worries' is such a good ideea. This is just another case of demeaning gay people.


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.

Dont try to use reason, statistics and facts with people that moralise.

Homophobia is irrational, so you're one to talk.

I am not homophobic.

I also approve that known drug addicts cannot donate blood due to the same reason. And I do not care if said drug addicts are homosexual or heterosexual.

I really dislike that you are putting your "homosexuals are always discriminated" above the risk of small children being put at greater risk to get HIV via blood infusions.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Around the Network
Rath on 08 September 2011
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.



sapphi_snake on 08 September 2011
Faxanadu said:
sapphi_snake said:
Faxanadu said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
 

Aren't they supposed to test the blood anyways? Honestly, this seems like racial profiling, only even more stupid.


They do test the blood. If you read the OP you'd see that there is a period of time after catching HIV that it cannot be detected in the blood.

And taking blood from a straight person and saying 'oh, this person's straight and AIDS is a gay disease, so I'm sure we can use it with no worries' is such a good ideea. This is just another case of demeaning gay people.


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.

Dont try to use reason, statistics and facts with people that moralise.

Homophobia is irrational, so you're one to talk.

I am not homophobic.

I also approve that known drug addicts cannot donate blood due to the same reason. And I do not care if said drug addicts are homosexual or heterosexual.

I really dislike that you are putting your "homosexuals are always discriminated" above the risk of small children being put at greater risk to get HIV via blood infusions.

So being gay is the same as being a drug addict? And heterosexuals don't engage in promiscuous sex? You are aware that the current situation allows for promiscuous heterosexuals, and even heterosexual prostitutes to donate blood, no? All this while homosexuals who don't engage in promiscuous sex are banned, and all because they're gay.



"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)

sapphi_snake on 08 September 2011
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)

Rath on 08 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Faxanadu said:
sapphi_snake said:

Homophobia is irrational, so you're one to talk.

I am not homophobic.

I also approve that known drug addicts cannot donate blood due to the same reason. And I do not care if said drug addicts are homosexual or heterosexual.

I really dislike that you are putting your "homosexuals are always discriminated" above the risk of small children being put at greater risk to get HIV via blood infusions.

So being gay is the same as being a drug addict? And heterosexuals don't engage in promiscuous sex? You are aware that the current situation allows for promiscuous heterosexuals, and even heterosexual prostitutes to donate blood, no? All this while homosexuals who don't engage in promiscuous sex are banned, and all because they're gay.


Drug addicts also have a very high risk of catching HIV due to shared needles and as stated men who have sex with men are statistically hugely more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men or women.

Prostitutes are also given life bans from donating blood in the UK due to the risk of HIV infection, same as people who have ever injected themselves with drugs.

https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp



Zlejedi on 08 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
WOW, sure took them long enough.


Well it's not really a case of discrimination here, the science actually supported this ban for a while and still supports a ban for a year after gay sex. HIV in blood is very much a worry.

Aren't they supposed to test the blood anyways? Honestly, this seems like racial profiling, only even more stupid.

If you actually read the whole article and not just title you would know there's a period of time where it remains undetected.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB