Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehsponge)
    Nice stereotyping there. Also there are probably far more promiscuous straight people, seeing as the population of gay people is far lower than straight people.
    I didn't say "all gay men are promiscuous" - I'm not that stupid. But you can't say my statement isn't true and doesn't contribute to the higher than average incidence of HIV in the gay population

    Numberswise, yes, there probably are more promiscuous straight people, but as a proportion I doubt it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    yes but the issue of people lying if the question said "have you had unprotected sex in the last x amount of time" would be no greater than the risk of gay people lying surely?
    I personally wouldn't care whether the blood given to me was from a gay or straight person as long as it was tested to the best of the NHS' ability and there were no diseases found.

    I'd just be thankful to be alive, but I think it's fair enough if others do not want this increased risk if there is substantial evidence to support that there is still a higher prevalence rate of contracting HIV if you are gay in comparison to straight people.

    I don't personally agree because blood is tested every time regardless of what you have written on your health form but I can certainly understand where people are coming from when they are against gay people donating.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Hang on, I always thought that gays had homoproteins in their blood plasma that would stimulate the production of antihomoprotein antibodies in straight recipients and cause Cardiac Tamponade by damaging the capillary network in the epicardium?

    The above post is complete bull****. I have no idea what I just said and the entire post is for comedic purposes. Just thought I'd mention that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    I personally wouldn't care whether the blood given to me was from a gay or straight person as long as it was tested to the best of the NHS' ability and there were no diseases found.

    I'd just be thankful to be alive, but I think it's fair enough if others do not want this increased risk if there is substantial evidence to support that there is still a higher prevalence rate of contracting HIV if you are gay in comparison to straight people.

    I don't personally agree because blood is tested every time regardless of what you have written on your health form but I can certainly understand where people are coming from when they are against gay people donating.
    I don't have an issue with blood coming from a gay person I have an issue with blood coming from anyone (more likely a straight person since they aren't even asked about it) who has had unprotected sex recently enough that they could of caught something and it not show up on the tests yet. which is why I said they should ask straight people aswell :mad:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    we do have free HIV screening and you can have it as regularly as you go ask for it.

    makes sense in to a point. but if you a woman and have sex with a man that has previously had gay sex you have to wait a certain amount of time, I think its a year, so why such a longer wait for the man. I think you also have to wait a year if you get a tattoo? so surely if HIV would show up in that length of time the extra long wait is pointless
    Ah, I didn't know that.

    And yes, I agree that the ban is completley unfair really.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    What are the significant barriers against opening up blood donations to everybody; but via the pre-donation questionnaire sorting the donated blood into 'low risk' and 'high risk' categories and the latter getting rigorously tested and re-tested etc.?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    Wait, I don't get this:

    "Sexually active" homosexuals are at risk of contracting HIV, so they are not allowed to donate blood. On the contrary, "sexually active" heterosexuals are at risk of contracting HIV as well, but they are allowed to donate blood. :confused:
    The point you seem to be missing is that the level of risk is not the same.


    Personally I agree with tieyourmotherdown. I have faith in the experts to make the correct decision so if they support the lifting of the ban who am I to disagree. This should be a medical issue rather than a political one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I give blood regularly, the option on the form is "Have you ever had unprotected sex with another man/unprotected sex with a man who has had unprotected sex with another man". (OWTTE) It's okay if gay people have used protection.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get why there could be a straight person who's never used protection in their life and sleeps around and is just lucky enough to not catch anything can donate blood, but the moment a gay person is brought into the scenario, no matter how careful they are, they're not allowed to until they haven't had sex for 10 years?! It makes no sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Only the blood of sweet virgins should be taken. On a full moon. :mmm:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I think this is wrong

    This is wrong, if someone is in a higher risk group, they shouldn't be allowed. It's not homophobic, it's logical.
    I agree with this in a completely non-homophobic way.

    I would not want my life to be destroyed because a gay man (who shouldn't be giving blood) had HIV he didn't know about and then passed it onto me.

    I'm straight, but I don't take the risk of any STDs by always wearing a condom.

    Obviously, straight people in the UK can just as easily contract HIV but it is definitely more prevalent amongst the homosexual community.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by colabottles)
    I don't get why there could be a straight person who's never used protection in their life and sleeps around and is just lucky enough to not catch anything can donate blood, but the moment a gay person is brought into the scenario, no matter how careful they are, they're not allowed to until they haven't had sex for 10 years?! It makes no sense.
    I might be an extremely safe driver, far safer than most 50 year olds. But when I get an insurance quote I will always be quoted far more than a 50 year old because of my demographic - as a young male I am statistically more likely to be involved in an accident than the average 50 year old. If am the perfect driver this may seem unfair on me, but from the point of view of the insurance company it makes a lot of sense.

    The situation here is exactly analogous, and I'm not sure what part of it people in this thread seem to be finding so hard to understand.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why the LGBT activists continue to make an issue of this I shall never know. This is a policy based on clear science and not discrimination - to argue otherwise simply shows a lack of understanding of the science behind the decision.

    The current epidemiology is clear and hopefully in time the trend will change and naturally with that would come a change of policy.


    Finally it is any man who engaged in sex with another man - that precludes a "straight" man who has had drunken curious fumble with another guy but allows any virgin "gay" man to donate. If it is any sort of discrimination (which it isn't) it is against sexual habits not sexuality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    What are the significant barriers against opening up blood donations to everybody; but via the pre-donation questionnaire sorting the donated blood into 'low risk' and 'high risk' categories and the latter getting rigorously tested and re-tested etc.?
    Don't understand why people keep missing this as I've mentioned it so many times - mostly high risk because HIV cannot be screened for in the early stages of disease; will not be detected
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    I didn't say "all gay men are promiscuous" - I'm not that stupid. But you can't say my statement isn't true and doesn't contribute to the higher than average incidence of HIV in the gay population

    Numberswise, yes, there probably are more promiscuous straight people, but as a proportion I doubt it.
    Its at a higher incidence because the HIV retrovirus can enter the blood more easily through the mucous membrane of the rectum. Which is a much higher risk factor than promiscuity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    I would not want my life to be destroyed because a gay man (who shouldn't be giving blood) had HIV he didn't know about and then passed it onto me.
    Why would your life be "destroyed" if you were unfortunate enough to get HIV. HIV is a condition with excellent treatments and if caught in the early stages people have a virtually normal life expectancy.

    Of course, it is has other consequences but none that should "destroy" someones life. HIV is no longer a "death sentence" and such stigma and beliefs are misplaced.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by lekky)
    Don't understand why people keep missing this as I've mentioned it so many times - mostly high risk because HIV cannot be screened for in the early stages of disease; will not be detected
    So there's no possible way to screen for HIV in the blood samples? The blood samples of somebody with HIV are exactly the same as somebody without it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    So there's no possible way to screen for HIV in the blood samples? The blood samples of somebody with HIV are exactly the same as somebody without it?
    In the very early stages of the disease, yes
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If you have clean blood, you should be able to donate it. Simple as.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by lekky)
    In the very early stages of the disease, yes
    Is the 10 year mark (that you mentioned in the OP) the transition from the early stages to the later stages (i.e. is it strictly necessary for it to be 10 years, rather than 5?) How long does blood store?

    I genuinely don't really understand the theory behind this so apologies for the stupid questions...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 31, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.