[tehFrance]

(Original post by TopHat)
Of course, the famed Disciples of Thatcher.

No that is rather insulting tbh. Respect my religious freedoms.

[StatusRed]

Aye, a nice bit of Left-Leaning collaboration.

[JPKC]

(Original post by tehFrance)
No that is rather insulting tbh. Respect my religious freedoms.

Your religious freedom to choose to restrict yourself! I know practicing Jews that give blood, if I was practicing I'd donate (though maybe that's the attitude causing me to not practice in the first place ).

[tehFrance]

(Original post by JPKC)
Your religious freedom to choose to restrict yourself!

Yes, my choice.

[Life_peer]

I am surprised that homosexuals are allowed to donate blood (because of the significant risk of having an STD, before you start condemning me). How can you be sure that the potential donor has not had sexual intercourse with a man less than one year before the day of attempted donation? You can not. It is too risky.

[Rakas21]

Aye.

Given the insignificance of the change in time periods it seems a logical step.

[LPK]

(Original post by Life_peer)
I am surprised that homosexuals are allowed to donate blood (because of the significant risk of having an STD, before you start condemning me). How can you be sure that the potential donor has not had sexual intercourse with a man less than one year before the day of attempted donation? You can not. It is too risky.

How can you be sure any blood donations are not coming from a man who has had sex with another man? Or a prostitute? Or hasn't recently shared needles? Unless you develop some groundbreaking system that can detect any of these actions then the problem you have mentioned can exist no matter how long the window period is. The only way to overcome such a problem would be to remove the National Blood Service and criminalise blood donations.

Aye.

[TheCrackInTime]

(Original post by tehFrance)
No that is rather insulting tbh. Respect my religious freedoms.

That goes both ways tbh. You can't expect someone to respect your religious freedoms, if you're not prepared to respect their freedom to not practice or be subject to your religion.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by TheCrackInTime)
That goes both ways tbh. You can't expect someone to respect your religious freedoms, if you're not prepared to respect their freedom to not practice and be subject to your religion.

I respect their freedom however what he said was about the 'Disciples of Thatcher' which isn't a religion.

[TheCrackInTime]

(Original post by tehFrance)
I respect their freedom however what he said was about the 'Disciples of Thatcher' which isn't a religion.

I know some who would argue different, however as his comment followed this:

(Original post by tehFrance)
No, purely as I am not allowed to religiously.

which you then justified as "religious freedom", I thought it was something worth pointing out.

[LPK]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Go for it!

Is it 1year for female's that get stiffed in the back too?

My understanding is that the current deferall period only applies for women who have had a MSM partner within that window period. If they know (or suspect) they have had "sex" with a man who has slept with another man then they will have to follow the same window period.

However, that window period does not apply if they have had anal sex with a man who reports no oral/anal contact with another man.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by TheCrackInTime)
I know some who would argue different, however as his comment followed this:

which you then justified as "religious freedom", I thought it was something worth pointing out.

Really? 'Disciples of Thatcher' is a religion?

I respect his religion (whatever it may be) however he brought up the non-existent religion of 'Disciples of Thatcher', religious freedom only extends to those that are actual religions and the 'Disciples of Thatcher' is not one, I can find zero information on it so religious freedom in the case of the 'Disciples of Thatcher' does not apply whereas me being a Jew following Judaism it does apply... hence me voting against the bill.

He was basically taking the piss which I found insulting.

[Life_peer]

(Original post by LPK)
How can you be sure any blood donations are not coming from a man who has had sex with another man? Or a prostitute? Or hasn't recently shared needles? Unless you develop some groundbreaking system that can detect any of these actions then the problem you have mentioned can exist no matter how long the window period is. The only way to overcome such a problem would be to remove the National Blood Service and criminalise blood donations.

Aye.

Yes, we can not be sure in other cases as well, hence such a legal requirement is pointless as I was trying to imply.

[LPK]

(Original post by Life_peer)
Yes, we can not be sure in other cases as well, hence such a legal requirement is pointless as I was trying to imply.

But what's your solution to the problem? Your first post seemed to imply that you think MSM should be permanently ineligible, but that only maximises the possibility of people lying so that they can donate. If we were to calculate the number of MSM who lie within both timeframes (ie, within the 1 year period and within the age eligibility period [17 to 65]) then it is clear that a lot more would fall into your category, so your preference for such donations is really a big part of the very problem you mentioned.

The focus should be on educating people on the importance of these window periods, rather than simply using the 'ick' factor to ban 'gay' blood. After all, a gay male who has been sexually inactive for a year or more poses extremely little risk of infecting another person, so it is pointless disgarding their life-saving donation when scientific advancements within blood screening can thoroughly inspect it. A lot of the risk, as highlighted within the latest Satbo review, comes from those who lie, and such situations would be rife if the National Blood Service was to be perceived as overreacting and rejecting scientific research and instead focusing on arbitrary permanent bans. This change will actually minimise that effect, so if you're worried about people lying then I think that is itself a good reason for supporting the latest scientific recommendations and focusing on educating the public. Your solution (assuming I interpreted your post correctly) would only lead to further blood shortages and greater chances of donors being deceptive.

There's a lot of reasons for people to lie when attempting to donate blood, and only a small portion of those reasons will be because of a male having sexual contact with another male. As i've said, the only way to get around such a problem would be to ban everybody on the grounds that they could be lying. Is that something you support?

(Original post by tehFrance)
hence me voting against the bill

I just had a quick check in the Division Lobby and noticed that you Abstained on the previous Blood Donation bill last year. How come you're voting against this bill but didn't do so for the previous?

[RoryS]

This a brilliant step forward in the right direction - aye.

[SciFiRory]

can someone answer this for me please:

if they go through tests before they can donate anyway, why does it matter if they had sex at any stage before donating blood? if the blood is tested and deemed okay then why does it matter?

(I know nill about this, but this was the first question that came to mind, if they do not do tests or something or can't then please let me know so I can make an informed decision on this bill, thanks in advance )

[barnetlad]

Aye. I am a blood donor.

[JPKC]

(Original post by SciFiBoy)
can someone answer this for me please:

if they go through tests before they can donate anyway, why does it matter if they had sex at any stage before donating blood? if the blood is tested and deemed okay then why does it matter?

HIV is notoriously difficult to test for.

[RoryS]

(Original post by barnetlad)
Aye. I am a blood donor.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by JPKC)
HIV is notoriously difficult to test for.

So these tests that find HIV... they could be wrong?