TSR Med Students&#x27; Society Part III

Original post by RollerBall

Final reflective writing submitted. That's it. No more medsoc for the best part of six months. All that's left now is to have a free dinner with my GP, I guess every cloud and all that.

om nom nom

Reply 2863

Mushi_master

Amazing weekend - BBQ and lotsa beer and cider in the sun yesterday, and went to the little farm in Surrey Quays with the girlfriend today, also in the sun.

One more week of term to go...

Reply 2864

Original post by lekky

It was in the Sunday Times this morning. Interesting arguments on both sides, as far as I understand it, they reckon that this increases the risk of HIV entering the blood supply by <5%, but it should reduce the number of people who donate despite being banned.

Reply 2865

Original post by Fission_Mailed

5% seems quite high, and why do they think currently active gay men who donate (about 7%) despite this now will suddenly stop?

*goes to try and find article*

Reply 2866

Original post by lekky

5% seems quite high, and why do they think currently active gay men who donate (about 7%) despite this now will suddenly stop?

*goes to try and find article*

*Shrug* I'm afraid I only half read the article. :redface:

Reply 2867

Tech

Original post by lekky

5% seems quite high, and why do they think currently active gay men who donate (about 7%) despite this now will suddenly stop?

*goes to try and find article*

I was just thinking it seems quite high, but if it's a 5% of-the-risk increase of the risk, then if the risk was already quite small I guess it might not be a big increase of risk?

if you find the article, plix link (much too lazy to search) :awesome:

Reply 2868

Original post by Tech

you have to subscribe to the times to read it online, sigh

if anyone has a subscription, copy paste please? :awesome:

Reply 2869

Original post by Tech

Ministers are to lift the ban on gay men giving blood — but will insist they must not have had sex for 10 years before they donate.

Anne Milton, the public health minister, is expected to announce the move soon following concerns that the existing blanket ban is discriminatory and could breach equality laws. Gay men who are or have been sexually active are banned from donating to ensure that blood contaminated with HIV does not reach patients.

Removing the ban will be welcomed by gay rights campaigners but critics are likely to express concern that it will increase the risk of patients contracting HIV.

Although donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a tiny number of infected donations are missed because there is a short period after infection before a test will show a positive result.

Ministers have been advised on the move by Sabto, the advisory committee on the safety of blood, tissues and organs. It found that if the ban were replaced by a new rule preventing gay men from giving blood for five years after having sex with another man, the risk of HIV reaching the blood supply would go up by less than 5%.

It is estimated that this figure would halve if the “deferral” period were increased to 10 years. Ministers are therefore proposing that gay men should defer becoming donors until 10 years after having gay sex.

The current blood donation system is based on trust and there is no policing to ensure that donors abide by restrictions. At least 7% of sexually active gay men give blood despite a ban.

Gay men are the group most at risk of passing on HIV in blood, followed by intravenous drug users. The 10-year deferral is designed to ensure that people who are not aware they have contracted HIV do not unwittingly pass it on.

Gay rights campaigners have argued for a lifting of the ban, saying many gay men are in monogamous relationships, practise safe sex or have been celibate for years.

In its advice to the government, Sabto warned that although the risk of passing on HIV is slight, if the ban on gay men were lifted and a significant number ignored the deferral rules, the risk of passing on HIV would increase considerably.

An estimated 86,500 people have HIV in Britain, with a quarter unaware that they have an infection. About 42% of people infected with HIV in 2009 were gay men, with 54% being heterosexuals, almost two-thirds of whom were black African, according to the Terrence Higgins Trust, the HIV charity.

Gay men, with the exception of those who have never been sexually active, account for 63% of HIV diagnoses where the infection was acquired in the UK.

The advice to Anne Milton pointed out that gay men are also at risk of passing on other sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis.

A government source said: “A complete ban is unfair and discriminatory but we need to protect public health, so the 10-year rule is what is being considered.”

The lifting of the ban is backed by Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, and Lynne Featherstone, the minister for equality.

The Canadian blood service recently reviewed its policy of banning sexually active gay men from donating blood and decided not to lift the ban.

In New Zealand there is a 10-year deferral policy, while South Africa has a five-year time limit.

The advisory committee on blood donations also looked at whether to introduce a lifetime ban on heterosexuals who have had sex with someone from a part of the world where HIV is widespread, such as sub-Saharan Africa.

Although the experts concluded this would cut the risk of HIV getting into the blood supply, there were concerns that such a move could be perceived as racially prejudiced. It could also limit the supply of blood for patients of Afro-Caribbean origin, particularly those with sickle cell anaemia.

thanks to Fission_mailed.. :smile:

Reply 2870

Philosoraptor

Original post by Onychophagia

One of my mates revision has hit an all time low, so he made this.

You might only get some of the jokes if you're at RUMS but thought it was still pretty funny.

Haha brings back the old days!
LAPT and worrying about failing one of the blimming papers and having to resit all (still happens in first year clinics :frown:

)

Reply 2871

****ing hell. TSR applicants now invading my private life through the back door that is Facebook.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2872

No Future

Original post by digitalis

****ing hell. TSR applicants now invading my private life through the back door that is Facebook.

???

Reply 2873

Original post by No Future

???

I, being the idiot that I am, never presumed applicants would be joining medical school networks on facebook before they have even started, gaining access to my profile etc (you know, considering that I presumed people in the BL network were actually BL students) and having a gander! Cue crash lockdown of my profile to friends only.

Schoolboy error I know, but is it just me or is this an all new low for TSR? :s-smilie:

Reply 2874

Original post by digitalis

****ing hell. TSR applicants now invading my private life through the back door that is Facebook.

Bloody hell. That's not on. Hopefully your privacy settings are in OK shape.

Reply 2875

Original post by Fission_Mailed

Bloody hell. That's not on. Hopefully your privacy settings are in OK shape.

Yeah :s just never crossed my mind. If there is one thing that I hold sacred on here, it is the ability to separate "real world" from TSR world.

Reply 2876

**** this. Line's been crossed. I'm getting off TSR.

Reply 2877