Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -1984-)
    It may be discriminate, but at least there's a reasonable medical excuse for doing so. Banning gay men from giving blood, irrespective of whether they have any STD's is pure discrimination, without any medical reason.
    Who cares? Statistically, gay men are more likely to have contracted HIV; this is as legitimate a basis for discrimination as any, short of our admitting all prospective donors for exhaustive testing, which simply is not feasible at the present time.

    Of course, prohibiting them from donating altogether seems somewhat counter-productive given the current dearth of supply: suffice it to say, any blood is better than none at all. However, as Libertine North has rendered abundantly evident, the figures speak for themselves.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lib north)
    You trivialised your own argument by bringing up Adolf Hitler in a totally uncalled for way.
    Bringing that up was totally justified. What Hitler did to gay people must never be forgotten and any discrimination must be challenged with the full weight of this argument. Hitler even said himself that fascism must be crushed ruthlessly in it's earliest stages.
    Even if MSM have been screened for HIV seperately before giving blood they are still not allowed to give blood. Therefore this is not about the blood containing HIV or not. Furthermore it implies that all MSM are promiscuous and at any given time don't know what the situation is of the people they are sleeping with or even their own situation.
    On top of that MSM are more likely than any other group to know their HIV situation, so if anything would be safer than some heterosexual populations.
    They don't want gay blood, simply because the conception is that it's dodgy or "damaged goods". Nothing scientific about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So Lib North has provided information about higher prevalence of HIV, while this is part of the reason for their barring from blood donation the prevalence of Hepatitis B and C is probably more important. In a controlled study conducted in 1998 roughly 34% of subjects (homosexual men) were hepatitis B+ (pop. norm. ~0.5%) and 12% hep. C+ (pop. norm. ~0.7%).

    [Osella et al. (1998) Hepatitis B and C Virus Sexual Transmission Among Homosexual Men. American Journal of Gastroenterology]

    From another paper here is the risk of transmission of all 3 viruses with the current UK screening system:

    "Recent UK estimates suggest the risk for hepatitis B virus is 1 in 50 000 to 170 000; for hepatitis C virus is <1 in 200 000; and for HIV is <1 in 2 million units"

    [Regan et al. (2000) Prospective investigation of transfusion transmitted infection in recipients of over 20 000 units of blood. BMJ]

    Really, they're not making this up based on back-of-envelope calculations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by golden maverick)
    In a controlled study conducted in 1998 roughly 34% of subjects (homosexual men) were hepatitis B+ (pop. norm. ~0.5%) and 12% hep. C+ (pop. norm. ~0.7%).
    It doesn't say whether the 34% and 12% wanted to give blood. Obviously if you were homosexual not only would you get tested regularly but before deciding to give blood you would then get tested too, something which alot of heterosexuals would not do. The fact remains that even if you have been tested seperately, you are still not allowed to give blood, solely because of homosexuality. The implication of homosexuals is therefore as above.
    (Original post by golden maverick)
    "Recent UK estimates suggest the risk for hepatitis B virus is 1 in 50 000 to 170 000; for hepatitis C virus is <1 in 200 000; and for HIV is <1 in 2 million units"
    Where is the proof that relates the instances of hepatitis B and C transference to homosexual men?
    I understand the figures, I'm just saying that this isn't a problem with figures it's actually a social issue. Don't pretend this is anything to do with science. I agree with your figures that homosexual men are more likely to have hepatitis B and C. A homosexual however is more likely to get themselves tested than a heterosexual, just because of the prevalence of these diseases within the community. If a homosexual has been tested and is clear, why then is he not allowed to give blood?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esquire)
    It doesn't say whether the 34% and 12% wanted to give blood. Obviously if you were homosexual not only would you get tested regularly but before deciding to give blood you would then get tested too, something which alot of heterosexuals would not do. The fact remains that even if you have been tested seperately, you are still not allowed to give blood, solely because of homosexuality. The implication of homosexuals is therefore as above.

    Where is the proof that relates the instances of hepatitis B and C transference to homosexual men?
    I understand the figures, I'm just saying that this isn't a problem with figures it's actually a social issue. Don't pretend this is anything to do with science. I agree with your figures that homosexual men are more likely to have hepatitis B and C. A homosexual however is more likely to get themselves tested than a heterosexual, just because of the prevalence of these diseases within the community. If a homosexual has been tested and is clear, why then is he not allowed to give blood?
    These are general estimates, not based on sexuality or any other factor.

    Any unit of blood that is donated has to be tested, regardless of whether the donor has regular checks. While I appreciate that homosexuals are more likely to know if they have any of these infections, the percentage who have one and do not know about it is also significantly higher than the national average, as put forward by Lib North. As to why those who have been tested cannot give blood I do not know, perhaps there is still an increased risk, perhaps it is not economically viable for the blood donor units to be able to identify a correct test result given the small potential increase. At the end of the day, the blood service is there to get as much blood as they can at little cost and little risk; it is not there to try to smoothe over cultural relations.
    This decision IS based on scientific issues, NOT on a prejudice you have put forward no evidence to support. You show me evidence that shows there is not an increased risk and that it could be economically viable to verify test results and I'll agree with you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coaster)
    Is it right that gay men are denied the chance of giving blood purely because of their sexuality?

    I'm not saying that all gay me are infected with HIV, but it does seem to reduce the risk considerably of wasting time collecting blood that can't be used.
    And of course the risk of having HIV is higher if you are gay? :rolleyes:

    My god, you are ignorant. The risk of catching it is the same as if you are straight.

    The "More Gay Men Have HIV" is commonly thought- but it's not true!!

    Heres a tip: Maybe you should research your topic of debate before you comment on it?

    And as the person above said. It would be discriminatory to disqualify Gay men. Those men may save your life if you are ever in an accident and you want them removed from doing so?

    What percentage of gay men make up the blood donors list? Take that away and you'd lose a considerable amount of donors, increasing the shortage of blood.

    If I was asked my sexuality whilst giving blood - I'd outright refuse because I'd be discriominated against and treated differently.

    What you are suggesting is to bring in homophobic principles!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    So Lib North has provided information about higher prevalence of HIV, while this is part of the reason for their barring from blood donation the prevalence of Hepatitis B and C is probably more important. In a controlled study conducted in 1998 roughly 34% of subjects (homosexual men) were hepatitis B+ (pop. norm. ~0.5%) and 12% hep. C+ (pop. norm. ~0.7%).
    Indeed, I do think that hepatitis transmissions through donated blood are more of a problem than HIV/AIDS.

    (Original post by Esquire)
    Bringing that up was totally justified. What Hitler did to gay people must never be forgotten and any discrimination must be challenged with the full weight of this argument. Hitler even said himself that fascism must be crushed ruthlessly in it's earliest stages.
    Even if MSM have been screened for HIV seperately before giving blood they are still not allowed to give blood. Therefore this is not about the blood containing HIV or not. Furthermore it implies that all MSM are promiscuous and at any given time don't know what the situation is of the people they are sleeping with or even their own situation.
    On top of that MSM are more likely than any other group to know their HIV situation, so if anything would be safer than some heterosexual populations.
    They don't want gay blood, simply because the conception is that it's dodgy or "damaged goods". Nothing scientific about it.
    So anything that is opposed to the supposed interests of the gay community has parallels with Nazism? :rolleyes:

    As we've said before, an HIV test cannot tell adequately what has been contracted in the past 3 months. All the HIV testing in the world still won't make someone who is at a high risk of infection any less suspect.

    It does imply that MSM (what a term, eh?) are more promiscious because, generally speaking, they have proven that they are. Not to mention that their method of sexual intercourse carries far more risk of infection than vaginal penetration. Equally one could claim that someone who uses drugs and has sex with prostitutes lived a clean lifestyle. Good for them. But unfortunately the generalisation is in this case medically valid: making it does reduce the chances of infected blood being passed on.

    "On top of that MSM are more likely than any other group to know their HIV situation"

    As the CDC figures stated, 25% of homosexuals who have HIV don't know their situation. That's a huge and startling figure and one that I believe invalidates this whole line of reasoning.

    Do you think that the world's doctors are institutionally homophobic or something, because that is complete nonsense. I can't imagine anybody not accepting a transfusion from a gay person simply because they are gay; yet there have been cases where people have refused to take/donate blood on the grounds that it won't be from/given to someone of their race, religion of nationality. Yet despite this greater pressure, I don't see monoracial blood banks anywhere. Why? Because the medical establishment, on the whole, is civilised and decent and does not let itself be used to further the prejudices of the few.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choccielatte)
    And of course the risk of having HIV is higher if you are gay? :rolleyes:
    Yes, very much so.

    My god, you are ignorant. The risk of catching it is the same as if you are straight.
    Rot. Anal sex is more likely to transmit disease for one and secondly the gay community has far higher rates of infection. Therefore by sleeping with one another, they have an increased risk of transmission. 65% of transmissions of HIV occur through male-male sexual activity, only 16% (and an extra 5% who also inject drugs) occur from hetrosexual contract despite the fact that only about 7% of the male population is gay.

    The "More Gay Men Have HIV" is commonly thought- but it's not true!!
    That's a straight-out lie which can be debunked easily by even the world's poorest researcher. I've provided reliable figures, you don't - and are making something of an idiot of yourself.

    Heres a tip: Maybe you should research your topic of debate before you comment on it?
    Maybe you should take your own advice.

    What percentage of gay men make up the blood donors list? Take that away and you'd lose a considerable amount of donors, increasing the shortage of blood.
    You clearly didn't research that. Since the dawn of blood banks, gay men have internationally been disqualified from donating. Again, you're looking like a complete tool.

    If I was asked my sexuality whilst giving blood - I'd outright refuse because I'd be discriominated against and treated differently.
    Well every time I donate I have to state categorically that I have never had anal or oral sex with another man, or paid for or been paid for sex, or injected any sort of illegal substance. So do you believe that every man should stop donating blood?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Come on! All of you who are against sound as if you had remained 24 years ago. I woldn't expect such an opinion from people who belong to a much more open and liberal country than mine. I do agree that there are certain conducts that may lead you to the risk of contracting HIV, but we should not generalise on those who practise them.
    I really think that in our days both concepts: being gay, and having HIV, should be taken each independently. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other.
    Anyway, unless you go to a place whose reputation is dubious to get a transfusion, each and every single time you donate you have to answer a series of questions and your blood is screened before you actually donate half a litre or whatever.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Babaishis)
    Come on!
    I'm fast losing patience with people coming on here, accusing sensible people of being bigots and not even reading their intensely obvious arguments.

    I do agree that there are certain conducts that may lead you to the risk of contracting HIV, but we should not generalise on those who practise them.
    Of course we should if it benefits the nation's health. Giving blood is not a right.

    I really think that in our days both concepts: being gay, and having HIV, should be taken each independently. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other.
    No, one just incredibly increases the risk of the other.


    Anyway, unless you go to a place whose reputation is dubious to get a transfusion, each and every single time you donate you have to answer a series of questions and your blood is screened before you actually donate half a litre or whatever.
    1. Blood transfusion in the UK is carried out by the National Health Service. There are no 'dubious' places we go to donate.

    2. READ THE BLOODY THREAD! HIV tests on blood are inadequate and if you think the blood test that is given before you donate (which actually measures stuff like iron levels to make sure you won't collapes in the process of donation) is an HIV test then you're an idiot.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    OK, I am going to give my final word on the matter. I believe I have shown my case to be valid in the eyes of any reasonable person.

    The simple situation is that, if gay men are allowed to give blood in the UK, people will die as a result of that decision. No two ways about it, it will happen. Certainly not a huge number of people, but there will be deaths that were avoidable.

    It is ridiculous that anybody even raised this question.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What worries me is how many people, gay or straight, with certain conditions (like HIV) could potentially slip through the rather loose net.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Probably loads.

    I don't like the fact that in a discussion where so many people are throwing around figures and facts that there are astoundingly few (none?) reliable sources listed.

    If you have something to prove...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    (none?)
    I've quoted 2 peer reviewed papers..

    But, as a general criticism people, myself included, tend to quote sources too infrequently.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Probably loads.

    I don't like the fact that in a discussion where so many people are throwing around figures and facts that there are astoundingly few (none?) reliable sources listed.

    If you have something to prove...
    Admittedly mine were American figures, but I think the Center For Disease Control is a very reliable source...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, because if you had a blood transfusion from a gay person you might become gay yourself - same as if you sit on a toilet seat that a gay person has used - you'd definately catch AIDS - and that's true that is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    No, because if you had a blood transfusion from a gay person you might become gay yourself - same as if you sit on a toilet seat that a gay person has used - you'd definately catch AIDS - and that's true that is.
    Have you ever heard the one where if you share someones toothbrush or they sneeze near you you'll get AIDS, as there are small bits of blood which obviously infiltrate your skin via your pores?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Esquire)
    If all the blood is tested for HIV anyway, it shouldn't matter who gives the blood therefore this is discrimination. The argument about gay men being more likely to have HIV is irrelevant. It's ridiculous that gay men are being discriminated against in this way, and it's just another way of saying that gay men are somehow "unclean" or the word Hitler liked to use: degenerate. I think that it's really wrong that gays are being shunned from giving blood, something which is meant to be an altruistic act.
    Thank you for saying what I came in here to say. I mean is 5 pages of discussion really needed? One google search brings up:

    https://secure.blood.co.uk/vi_c11_cant.asp

    which says clearly that " Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C. " so no there is no reason to stop gay men from donating blood other than to purposely discriminate against homosexuals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superbug)
    Thank you for saying what I came in here to say. I mean is 5 pages of discussion really needed? One google search brings up:

    https://secure.blood.co.uk/vi_c11_cant.asp

    which says clearly that " Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C. " so no there is no reason to stop gay men from donating blood other than to purposely discriminate against homosexuals.
    Scroll on down on your source, you get this:

    The special problem of HIV and Hepatitis viruses

    Every single blood donation is tested for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) and hepatitis B and C.

    Infected blood isn't used in transfusions but our test may not always detect the early stages of viral infection.

    The chance of infected blood getting past our screening tests is very small, but we rely on your help and co-operation.

    People who carry these viruses may feel healthy for many years.



    You should never give blood if:

    1: You carry the hepatitis B virus, the hepatitis C virus or the HIV virus.

    2: You're a man who's had sex with another man, even "safe sex" using a condom.

    3: You've ever worked as a prostitute.

    4: You've ever injected yourself with drugs - even once.
    I think that's called an 'own goal'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Who says I wanted to give blood anyway, hope you bleed to death Lib North and the only person around is me and you are begging me and I turn and walk away :rolleyes:.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.