HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The gay community are a high risk group We should believe a flat assertion from someone who has no credentials or evidence, in preference to an expert medical board which has been sifting evidence for years? Somehow I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Your having an argument for arguments sake, you cannot be this stupid surely ? Do you know what percentages, risk factors, risk assessments and probability is ? My point is that, based on your arguments for the last three pages, you don't. It is your position which would lead to taking blood only from virgins. I've been trying to point out how ridiculous that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightlight59 Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 This decision is going to end up killing someone,those who have allowed this have blood on their hands,this should be reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I would prefer not to have homo blood dripped into me. But if I were unconcious, don't suppose you would know, would you. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 So being given gay blood will not make you gay? If it does you should track down some clever person blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If it does you should track down some clever person blood. Why would I want to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 the gay men there is a higher percentage of gay men with it. The problem is not as big in heterosexuals as the percentages of gay men with aids is much greater. Indeed, which is why there is a 12 month deferall for gay men. It limits the donation of blood to men who have not been sexually active for the past year because it is possible to screen their blood easier than it was before. Your anology could now be 100 hetrosexual people give blood and 2 (2%) may be HIV+, and 10 non-active* gay men give blood and 2 (20%) may be HIV+. There is indeed a larger risk, but those two are now able to be screened much better than we previously were able and banning the entire group is deemed unneccesary. Sexually active gay-men are still in an 'at risk' group and are still banned. ------ *Non-active = Not sexually active in the past 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 This decision is going to end up killing someone It seems to be working in Australia. [Link] CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the implementation of the 12-month deferral for male-to-male sex resulted in an increased recipient risk for HIV in Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I would prefer not to have homo blood dripped into me. But if I were unconcious, don't suppose you would know, would you. Regards Angel. Perhaps you should sign a consent form stating that you do not want any blood transfusion under any circumstances, you never know you may end up with homo blood inside you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Oh right so your argument is that if an heterosexual person has aids and can give blood it will be found in the screening so why not with homosexual men ? No one is suggesting it would not, from what can be seen, but that's not the argument, the argument is about percentages and probability. If you increase the likely hood of more people giving blood as having the disease then you increase the chances of cross infection and the risk of transmission to those working with the blood. Its reasonable to cut down the odds and that is exactly what it is about and nothing to do with the reliability of the screening test. Interestingly you cannot donate blood in the USA as it is deemed it to risky for the person potentially receiving your blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.