Fight to allow gay blood donors

Chunky Monkey

Whatever about 9/11 being an inside job, the theory that it was known about and nothing done is a fairly plausible one.

No idea about HIV though.

foggy_lad

have read through this and it seems that straight men who it would appear are trusted to give clean blood are far more likely to have lied about ever having had sex with another man!

and because of the illicit nature of their gay/bi encounters they are far less likely to have used protection than any openly gay man meaning that any women they may be with are also in a greater risk group if they give blood!

also any straight man can go to parts of africa and have sex with women there where in some parts 1 in 4 are hiv positive and there is no restriction on him giving blood!

the system is not so much taking individuals behaviour into account rather it seems to stick on percieved threats from Gay men's blood which is just as healthy as anyone elses. this is just my opinion on this.

Bottle_of_Smoke

foggy_lad wrote: »

also any straight man can go to parts of africa and have sex with women there where in some parts 1 in 4 are hiv positive and there is no restriction on him giving blood!

the system is not so much taking individuals behaviour into account rather it seems to stick on percieved threats from Gay men's blood which is just as healthy as anyone elses. this is just my opinion on this.

Bollocks. One guy already pointed out he lived in sub saharan africa for 6mths & now can NEVER donate. I'd imagine if you have sex with a woman from subsaharan Africa you're also banned. It's not mentioned but neither is living there.

And the system is only taking behaviour into account. Your sexuality isn't considered at all. A gay virgin is perfectly elligible to donate. A straight man whos been raped by a man isn't.

L1011

Its not mentioned on the list at all - and I've never heard of it being banned. Their list is fairly exhaustive.

Annasopra

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

And the system is only taking behaviour into account.

No it's not - a gay man who has always engaged in safer sex and always used condoms and has had a full STI test to show that he is clean is banned

A straight man who has never used a condom and could be riddled with all sorts of STIs is not banned

Kazobel

Sorry guys but I agree that gay men shouldn't be allowed give blood, I know the majority are safe but there is a minority that just fcuk around and don't give a sh!t and could have anything and the cost to screen that far outways any benefits that would come from their blood donations. Alot of gay guys would like to give blood and I can understand that it must be frustrating not being allowed to but for me at the end of the day it'd come down to one thing, if my kid was sick and needed a blood transfusion the last thing I'd want is to also have to worry about weather the blood was donated by a less than careful gay guy...simple as...

Saying that I also don't think any of these should ever be allowed give blood either

A straight man who has sex with a different girl every weekend can give blood TODAY.
Intravenous Drug users can give blood after 1 year.
Prostitute users can give blood after 1 year.
Those who have had sex abroad in a high risk HIV country can give blood after 18 months.

This rule affects me too btw, I've a girlfriend and only date girls but I can't give blood either because I'm seen as high risk even though I'm not but I wouldn't let it bother me simply because if you look at it from the point of view of a person having to make that life or death decision for a loved one they don't know my history, for all they know I could be shagging anyone and thats the blood they have to risk putting into their child/husband/wife/mother. Some things at times you really should just accept, not letting gay men donate blood isn't being discrimanatory, it's reducing the risk of tainted blood thats all, it'd cost to much to make sure there was no infections. I assume you all get regular 6 month HIV tests even though you practice safe sex? why? simple, because even practicing safe sex you can't even be sure so how can they?

L1011

Theres a minority of heterosexuals that **** around and don't give a ****, too, though. Are they banned? Nope.

Rev Hellfire

I'm sure if statically the heterosexuals total population had the same risk factors as those for gay males then they would be banned also, that is not the case.

Quite frankly I'd prefer to have gay males 'victimised' until the medical profession deem it preferable otherwise than have the blood supply potentially compromised for the sake of liberal right-on-ness.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Theres a minority of heterosexuals that **** around and don't give a ****, too, though. Are they banned? Nope.

I know there is but gay men are in the high risk category, it makes sense, live with it. At the end of the day it comes down to if it was your kid would you rather the knowledge that the blood your child is being given has a good chance of being infection free or "Well this is from a gay guy batch but we're pretty sure it's clean so it should be OK, they all got tested and told us they're fine so obviously it must be true". You live a life that's outside the norm, you put yourselves at risk of infection (with or without protection) everytime you have sex, you don't have the right to put others at that risk too and I know the same risk is there with hetero's but it's not as high. A hetro guy could sleep with 100 girls and it's probably about a 10% risk that he'll get infected (even less if he uses protection I'd assume) but a gay guy sleeping with 100 guys triples or more that stat protection or not, you adopt a lifestyle so accept that with it comes ristrictions, I agree with the rule because I have kids and there no way I'd let a blood transfusion go ahead if I knew the doner was a gay guy because it's just to risky and if my kid was sick I wouldn't want to make them sicker and unfortunately that is a risk. I'm not trying to be bad here I'm just being a logical parent and from that point of view the risk outweighs the benefit so why take the risk?

Kazobel

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm sure if statically the heterosexuals total population had the same risk factors as those for gay males then they would be banned also, that is not the case.

Quite frankly I'd prefer to have gay males 'victimised' until the medical profession deem it preferable otherwise than have the blood supply potentially compromised for the sake of liberal right-on-ness.

+1, I totally agree, this is just more bullsh!ting for the sake of "Ohh we're being victimised" but the simple truth is that you lead a lifestyle that is potentialy dangerous for situations like blood donations, there are some things that at the end of the day you just have to accept as making sense and this rule is one of them, it's not victimisation it's to ensure the blood supply isn't compromised. There could be a day where you need a transfusion and would you rather know it came from a souce that ticked all the boxes or from a gay guy with a sketchy past because I'd lay any bets that if you were told that the first thing you'd do is get an AIDS test. You's can't even trust each other to be totally honest so why should a charity organisation have to screen you?

L1011

I'm not likely to be having kids now, am I?

Anyway, I'd suspect that the kind of person who's sleeping with 100x partners is also going to be one of the last people in world who's going to donate blood. Also, the HSE isn't a charity organisation, cash-needy as it may seem! The IBTS is a state body.

This isn't the US where people are paid for blood (hence it can come from anyone, not just the civic minded) and where its collected by charity (Red Cross). Its Ireland, where only a tiny minority of people give blood, generally out of a feeling of altruism that your average person that goes cruising in the park isn't going to have.

The_Minister

That has to be the most judgemental thing that I have ever read (including my own posts!:eek:).
Someone has lots of sex = someone who won't give to charity?!

Where's Rb_ie when you need him?

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

That has to be the most judgemental thing that I have ever read (including my own posts!:eek:).
Someone has lots of sex = someone who won't give to charity?!

Where's Rb_ie when you need him?

Someone that has lots of unprotected sex with no concern for their own health and welfare = someone not that likely to have concern for anyone elses health or welfare. Think its a fair analogy...

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Someone that has lots of unprotected sex with no concern for their own health and welfare = someone not that likely to have concern for anyone elses health or welfare. Think its a fair analogy...

Well no actually it's not a good analogy, people like that usually have disassociative personalties where their public persona is the total opposite of their private persona and would in fact be more likely to give blood in the public persona because to do something that lessens the guilt of what they get up to in their private life...Sygmund Freud 101 :D

Stark

Lots of sex = bad person eh?

I feel like someone's hit me on the head and I've woken up in 1953.

L1011

Stark wrote: »

Lots of sex = bad person eh?

I feel like someone's hit me on the head and I've woken up in 1953.

Thats not what I said. Thats not anything like what I said.

Stark

It's exactly what you said. You said that promiscuous people are not the type to give a **** about other people.

L1011

No, I specifically said that people who are taking high risks with their health are not the type to be concerned with someone elses. Theres a difference between having lots of sex and cruising at the Papal Monument (which is what I implied with 'the park') now isn't there?

So, no, its not exactly what I said. Its nowhere near what I said.

Stark

Okay, time for the quote feature.

MYOB wrote:

Anyway, I'd suspect that the kind of person who's sleeping with 100x partners is also going to be one of the last people in world who's going to donate blood.

L1011

Selective use of the quote feature, you mean. Look at the *entire* post this time.

Have you got an ulterior motive for trying to twist what I'm saying?

L1011

Also, how does "lots of sex", which is all you mentioned in post 46, suddenly equate to "sex with lots of people"?

Rb

The_Minister wrote: »

That has to be the most judgemental thing that I have ever read (including my own posts!:eek:).
Someone has lots of sex = someone who won't give to charity?!

Where's Rb_ie when you need him?

You called?

The_Minister

Rb wrote: »

You called?

Yes, hi.
I'd like to order a visceral overreaction with a side of burn please.
Hold the muppet.
10 minutes?
Thanks.

hot2def

I was moritfied when I finally got up the courage to give blood, and was turned down a few year ago. I tried to explain that I've only ever had sex with one other woman, with her for years and no intravenous drug use. I don't think i could be sexually active and *be* in a lower risk category.

So if they don't want my blood because of some overly broad scaremongering - screw them, I'll not waste my time trying to convince them otherwise......

Stark

I don't think the ban applies to women...

L1011

It doesn't. Over-zealous worker I'd guess. It only applies to men.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No it's not - a gay man who has always engaged in safer sex and always used condoms and has had a full STI test to show that he is clean is banned

A straight man who has never used a condom and could be riddled with all sorts of STIs is not banned

By its very nature its far more unsafe. It's quite difficult for a guy to catch HIV from a woman, even if the sex is unprotected.

For one simple reason, after unprotected sex (or sex where a condom breaks) a heterosexual male doesn't have virus carrying semen inside him. I guess women have the protection that they tend to be less promiscuous.

Check the site, sexuality isn't mentioned, it's having had sex with another man that gets you banned.

kazobel wrote:

Saying that I also don't think any of these should ever be allowed give blood either


A straight man who has sex with a different girl every weekend can give blood TODAY.
Intravenous Drug users can give blood after 1 year.
Prostitute users can give blood after 1 year.
Those who have had sex abroad in a high risk HIV country can give blood after 18 months.

Don't worry, the above is lies. Thw Irish Blood Treansfusion site states using non-prescription intravenous drugs of any kind gets you banned for life.
A user who posted on this thread is banned for life as he lived in Sub-Saharan Africa for 6mths.
For prostitutes, I'm not certain, though as I mentioned above, a man is highly unlikely to catch HIV from a woman, virtually impossible with a condom. Would still agree it shouldn't be allowed though.
Don't want to sound like I'm promoting unsafe sex, so I'll just add that I wouldn't have unprotected sex with a girl unless I knew she'd been tested. A small risk of something like HIV isn't worth taking

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not likely to be having kids now, am I?

And does that make you incapable of empathy? it's easy to ignore the facts when they're never likely to affect you and then claim discrimination but whether or not you ever have kids I'm sure there are other people in your life that will and I'm sure, like nieces and nephews, you'll love some of them so try see it from the point of view of it being a choice you'd or their parents would have to make for them if they were sick, in that case would you be willing to risk using higher risk blood just for the sake of gay solidarity? if your answer is yes then to be honest it makes you no different than someone who denies a blood transfusion for their child for the sake of their religious beliefs.

L1011

It makes me incapable of answering a question that starts with 'what would you feel if your kids...'. And as that was how you phrased your question, it means I can't answer it.

And theres nothing of 'gay solidarity' about this. I don't honestly feel that there will be any higher risk than there is already, considering the methods of donation used in this country and the fact that the IBTS assure us its properly screened. Nor do I feel there'll be a higher rejected sample rate at screening, due to the methods of donation used in this company.

I can tell you where there is solidarity, though - the entire staff of my brothers former employers refused to partake in an employer-backed blood drive due to the ban and the fact that one member of staff (of the 80 or so there - so a below average number at that) was being excluded due to it. I doubt thats an isolated occurance. Employer had to call the IBTS and cancel the mobile collection clinic coming around when he realised it'd be parked up empty all day.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

It makes me incapable of answering a question that starts with 'what would you feel if your kids...'. And as that was how you phrased your question, it means I can't answer it.

And theres nothing of 'gay solidarity' about this. I don't honestly feel that there will be any higher risk than there is already, considering the methods of donation used in this country and the fact that the IBTS assure us its properly screened. Nor do I feel there'll be a higher rejected sample rate at screening, due to the methods of donation used in this company.

I can tell you where there is solidarity, though - the entire staff of my brothers former employers refused to partake in an employer-backed blood drive due to the ban and the fact that one member of staff (of the 80 or so there - so a below average number at that) was being excluded due to it. I doubt thats an isolated occurance. Employer had to call the IBTS and cancel the mobile collection clinic coming around when he realised it'd be parked up empty all day.

Boycotting is all well and good but it still doesn't change the facts, that guy was still high risk and I, and I'd say most other people, wouldn't want to think that they are taking that risk. It's a logical consequence so let it go, banning gay guys reduces the risk of tainted blood by a massive percentage, live with it because it does make sense in my opinion.