HeadingNorth Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I suppose if a healthy person were to have surgery and the donated blood came from someone who had AIDs and the healthy person was in turn afflicted with it as a result that person would be perfectly entitled to sue the living crap out of the hospital and the Red Cross Only if they can show negligence. Not all accidents are caused by negligent behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Maybe the Jehova Witness God botherers have the "right" idea, they refuse all blood - good, bad or homo. Regards Angel. No they don't, but at least they have the courage of their convictions which is probably more than can be said about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Only if they can show negligence. Not all accidents are caused by negligent behaviour. If a batch of infected blood managed to escape testing then it's a case of negligence/ carelessness/someone failing to do their job. It all comes down to one or all of these The "accident" excuse would not have any validity in this particular case and I dont think any jury would be sympathetic to a medical establishment claiming it happened as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 If a batch of infected blood managed to escape testing then it's a case of negligence/ carelessness/someone failing to do their job. It all comes down to one or all of these The "accident" excuse would not have any validity in this particular case and I dont think any jury would be sympathetic to a medical establishment claiming it happened as such. It is possible for infected blood to pass testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 To those who say all homosexuals should be excluded from donating on grounds of "risk" I've a question for you, who would you say is more of a risk as a blood donor? A gay man who has not had sex for 13 months A sexually active heterosexual who had sex last month The homosexual could have contracted HIV 13 months ago and screening technology is apparently now good enough to give an extremely high likelihood of catching an infection more than a year old. Prof Deirdre Kelly said "the risk from a 12-month deferral was equivalent to permanent deferral" so "the evidence does not support the maintenance of a permanent ban". The heterosexual could easily have contracted HIV last month, or the month before that, or the month before that... screening is apparently less effective for HIV contracted within the last year. If anything it would seem that the gay donor poses less of a risk of HIV infected blood getting through as even though he has a statistically higher chance of having HIV the 12 month waiting period means that any infection the heterosexual donor has is less likely to be caught. Absolutely. Perhaps we should ban the donation of blood from anyone who has been sexually active within the preceding 12 months? And anyone male, female, straight, gay, who has had casual sex within the previous year should not even present themselves to donate blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 It is possible for infected blood to pass testing. Interesting How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 All the blood donated is tested, that's not the issue. The problem is that in theory it can take months for antibodies to show if someone catches something undesirable, so if this happens just before donation, in theory it can slip through the net. I agree, in which case it should be a blanket ban across both sexes, gay and straight. If anything, straight people pose more of a risk as they are less likely to deem themselves to be at risk, therefore, more likely to present and donate blood during the sero-conversion window, whereas a gay male who practices anal sex is less likely to do so as he is more aware of HIV/AIDS and therefore, more likely to consider himself to be in a higher risk group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I agree, in which case it should be a blanket ban across both sexes, gay and straight. If anything, straight people pose more of a risk as they are less likely to deem themselves to be at risk, therefore, more likely to present and donate blood during the sero-conversion window, whereas a gay male who practices anal sex is less likely to do so as he is more aware of HIV/AIDS and therefore, more likely to consider himself to be in a higher risk group. That's like saying no one should be allowed to fly because they're all terrorists No one likes to be profiled and I can undersand some gays might feel victimized especially since blood donation is always done with the best intentions but AIDs can be easily spread and people have a reasonable expectation that all necessary precautions will be taken to protect them against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I agree, in which case it should be a blanket ban across both sexes, gay and straight. If anything, straight people pose more of a risk as they are less likely to deem themselves to be at risk, therefore, more likely to present and donate blood during the sero-conversion window, whereas a gay male who practices anal sex is less likely to do so as he is more aware of HIV/AIDS and therefore, more likely to consider himself to be in a higher risk group. That's like saying no one should be allowed to fly because they're all terrorists No one likes to be profiled and I can undersand some gays might feel victimized especially since blood donation is always done with the best intentions but AIDs can be easily spread and people have a reasonable expectation that all necessary precautions will be taken to protect them against it No it isn't! It's all about assessing one's risk and presenting to give blood. If indeed there is a window whereby sero-conversion has not yet occurred and the antibodies aren't present but the blood is infected then a straight person in a long term relationship whose partner is shagging around, or a straight person who has casual partner(s) is more at risk than a gay man who is in a steady relationship and does not practice penetrative sex, or uses protection or who has casual partners and gets regularly tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Interesting How so? No test is ever completely accurate. 99.9999%, maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.