Bulgarian Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 do you accept that HIV is more prevelant in the homosexual community yes or no? In this country it might be, but I'm sure the vast majority of the people in the world with AIDS are straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Because a committe of scientists have decided that it isn't a risk anymore. A committee of scientists think that global warming is something to worry over and another committee think that it is not, your statement is nothing to go on at all. Let those scientists be the first to get a transfusion then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 not quite,they say the risk is negligible.but however small its still there. The risk of any given sexual active heterosexual having HIV is rather more than "negligible" does that mean that we should be banned from donating blood as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 your statement is nothing to go on at all. I never said their knowledge was infallible. My point was that they've done more work on the subject than I have. Do you have any scientific reason to say that infected blood will have a greater chance of passing the tests undetected when it comes from a gay person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 "Nightlight's List of Blood Donors Who Make Him Feel Uneasy" Gays Muslims Darkies East Europeans Socialists Anyone to the left of Genghis Khan (wasn't he a Muslim?) Genghis Khan Women (don't want to risk turning into a gay boy) Anyone who eats halal meat Do gooders Members of the PC Brigade Anyone he's been in a relationship with and packed him Poor Nightlight, who does that leave? I wonder if teeth grinding nationalists are socially minded enough to donate blood? Sheffield United supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I never said their knowledge was infallible. My point was that they've done more work on the subject than I have. Do you have any scientific reason to say that infected blood will have a greater chance of passing the tests undetected when it comes from a gay person? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyR Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There is an slightly increased risk from the type of sex gay men have - but the main increase in risk is simply because it got into the gay community first, and statistically gay men tend to have sex with other gay men. If it had got into heterosexuals first, then it would be more prevalent in straight men and women. There is some dubious logic here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If you increase the likely hood of more people giving blood as having the disease The risks of homosexuals donating blood and the benefits of allowing more people to donate have been considered, and it has deemed negligible enough to lift the ban. [Committee member Prof Deirdre Kelly said ...] the data showed that "the risk from a 12-month deferral was equivalent to permanent deferral" so "the evidence does not support the maintenance of a permanent ban". It is an argument about the screening test because the article mentions advances made in this field. If you argue that gay men can't donate blood because they have a higher chance of having aids, then the same logic applies to all the sexually active population, because they have a higher chance aswell. Then we're on a cycle of excluding people from the process when we need their blood. It's a cost-benefit analysis essentially. The benefits of allowing more people to donate, combined with the advances in screening, now out-weigh the risks of allowing this group of people to donate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yog Sothoth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Never mind the risk of catching HIV, what about the risk of having the 'gay gene' inserted into your body, and becoming gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightlight59 Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 Never mind the risk of catching HIV, what about the risk of having the 'gay gene' inserted into your body, and becoming gay? lol now you are joking right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.