Fight to allow gay blood donors

hot2def

Kazobel wrote: »

banning gay guys reduces the risk of tainted blood by a massive percentage.

What percentage?

Kazobel

hot2def wrote: »

What percentage?

Fcuked if I know, it makes sense so I'm sure there is a percentage somewhere but I can't be arsed to find it for you, google it if it's that important to you, either way I personally agree with the rule, like it or not gay guys are high risk so accept it. Some hetro guys are high risk too but the operative word there is "some", only some would be living a lifestyle that is high risk but all gay guys live a lifestyle that is high risk, if it wasn't there'd be no need for you to have regular 6 month HIV tests. As I said before if you can't ever be totally sure why should they?

Annasopra

Kazobel wrote: »

all gay guys live a lifestyle that is high risk

That is completely untrue and uninformed Kazzie and you are talking bollox

An ESRI report in 2006 found that 70% of gay men reported never having anal sex and 27% of gay men reported never having oral sex.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf

Kazobel

Johnnymcg wrote: »

That is completely untrue and uninformed Kazzie and you are talking bollox

An ESRI report in 2006 found that 70% of gay men reported never having anal sex and 27% of gay men reported never having oral sex.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf

Well if they said it it must be true, sure I'm a virgin, I've never had sex...honest...

L1011

Oh, I'd well believe the ESRI results. Funny how they're the same as in many other countries too... can I ask what would motivate someone to lie on an anonymous survey - and for many people to do it consistently in many countries?

I work with someone who's gay who's never had anal sex, either mode. I know a number of other people who would have had it occasionally but only as the penetrator - which carries a very low risk of infection even if unprotected (not that thats a good idea).

And can I ask how having a single sexual partner for prolonged periods of time - as a number of gay men do - is a high risk lifestyle, if apparently "all" as you insist do?

I'd have thought you'd be slightly more open-minded than this, but you appear to be portraying a view not far from what I'd expect the Catholic Church to - that all gay men are bed-swapping sodomisers.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Oh, I'd well believe the ESRI results. Funny how they're the same as in many other countries too... can I ask what would motivate someone to lie on an anonymous survey - and for many people to do it consistently in many countries?

I work with someone who's gay who's never had anal sex, either mode. I know a number of other people who would have had it occasionally but only as the penetrator - which carries a very low risk of infection even if unprotected (not that thats a good idea).

And can I ask how having a single sexual partner for prolonged periods of time - as a number of gay men do - is a high risk lifestyle, if apparently "all" as you insist do?

I'd have thought you'd be slightly more open-minded than this, but you appear to be portraying a view not far from what I'd expect the Catholic Church to - that all gay men are bed-swapping sodomisers.

Gay men in general are high risk, it's not up to any organization to find out weather their claims of long term/only one partner is true and besides just because on claims to be monogamous it doesn't follow that the other one is too, It's still high risk, you haven't changed my mind at all and why would I be more open minded? I'm not a gay male, I have nothing in common with gay males

L1011

Explain to me how a monogamous homosexual relationship is any more high risk than a monogamous heterosexual one, as you still seem to be claiming.

And then explain to me why you assume only gay men could be open minded, or where I suggested you had anything in common with them.

Otherwise you could stop making stuff up, twisting what other people have said, and providing pronouncements of 'fact' when you won't believe whats being provided as fact by state agencies, thanks.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Explain to me how a monogamous homosexual relationship is any more high risk than a monogamous heterosexual one, as you still seem to be claiming.

I haven't claimed that at all, I said gay sex monogamous or not is a high risk category and easier for blood services to just ban because the risks outweigh the benefits, that's it. If banning all gay males stops even one person being given tainted blood from one person that's less than truthful then it's worth it because otherwise I'd hate to be that person or that persons child.

MYOB wrote: »

And then explain to me why you assume only gay men could be open minded, or where I suggested you had anything in common with them.

I will when you explain to me why there's any reason that you would assume I'd be more open minded than anyone else? I am being open minded, I'm just being open minded to the fact that this isn't discrimination it's logic especially from the point of view of the person that is being given the blood.

MYOB wrote: »

Otherwise you could stop making stuff up, twisting what other people have said, and providing pronouncements of 'fact' when you won't believe whats being provided as fact by state agencies, thanks.

I've made no claims of fact so far, I've been pretty clear that all my "stats" are just assumptions but I'd be willing to guess all my stats if anything err on the side of caution. IMO you're just p!ssed off because some peoples arguments against gay blood doners make sense, you said it yourself you're not in a position to ever have kids so this will never be a question for you so all you're really moaning about here is your validation from society, it's nothing to do with giving blood, you probably never would, you just want to know you and all other gay guys have the option no matter the risk of one bad batch. Sometimes you all really do b1tch about the stupidest things.

L1011

You said gay sex, monogamous or not, is high risk. This mean you said monogamous gay sex is high risk - and you haven't explained why. This is an important point, fundamental to your whole argument, please answer it and not skip it over with a fudged response.

The risk of "one bad batch" exists with the concept of blood donation. Full stop. No matter who you exclude for what reasons. People who are legitimately high risk are allowed donated - former prostitute users, for one; whereas those that are of the same risk as "the general population" are excluded.

As goes whether I would donate or not - I probably would. I've got the blood type that is of most use to them and is yet rather rare - O Negative - meaning that if you've donated once you get reminded every time you're allowed again, and theres a mobile clinic that comes near to work on a very similar time schedule. I'd prefer if you didn't make judgements against my character based on absolutely no evidence, thanks.

I'm not "pissed off" about anything other than a state agency being allowed continue with what it admits is discrimination. This is a country with wide-reaching and generally very good equality laws, yet oddly enough the majority of institutions which are allowed discriminate on various grounds are state or state funded - such as the medical, religious and education sector exemptions for employment equality.

What does the fact I'm never (likely) to have kids have to do with anything? You brought it in mid-rant there and appeared to drop the idea.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

You said gay sex, monogamous or not, is high risk. This mean you said monogamous gay sex is high risk - and you haven't explained why. This is an important point, fundamental to your whole argument, please answer it and not skip it over with a fudged response.

No I've said through all this gay sex is high risk, monogamy is irrelevant because it can't be proven so any gay sex is high risk, I'm sorry if you can't see that but that's how it is, it doesn't changed the fact that the rule is right.

MYOB wrote: »

The risk of "one bad batch" exists with the concept of blood donation. Full stop. No matter who you exclude for what reasons. People who are legitimately high risk are allowed donated - former prostitute users, for one;

Not from what I can see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56010170&postcount=58 , they aren't as high risk, simple as

MYOB wrote: »

whereas those that are of the same risk as "the general population" are excluded.

But gay males aren't at the same risk as the general population otherwise you wouldn't all need to get tested for HIV every 6 months would you now?

MYOB wrote: »

As goes whether I would donate or not - I probably would. I've got the blood type that is of most use to them and is yet rather rare - O Negative - meaning that if you've donated once you get reminded every time you're allowed again, and theres a mobile clinic that comes near to work on a very similar time schedule. I'd prefer if you didn't make judgements against my character based on absolutely no evidence, thanks.

Sorry about that, but I still wouldn't want my kid getting your blood, no matter what you say the risk is still there, if it's been 5 months since your last HIV test and you donate how do I know your last 5 month history? how could any parent? that's why the rule makes sense.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not "pissed off" about anything other than a state agency being allowed continue with what it admits is discrimination. This is a country with wide-reaching and generally very good equality laws, yet oddly enough the majority of institutions which are allowed discriminate on various grounds are state or state funded - such as the medical, religious and education sector exemptions for employment equality.

I deal with discrimination everyday, you can hide being gay I can't hide being Transsexual and trust me we get a hell of a lot worse than yous but this is not discrimination, as I've said this is logic. Thats it, pure and simple.

MYOB wrote: »

What does the fact I'm never (likely) to have kids have to do with anything? You brought it in mid-rant there and appeared to drop the idea.

You can't empathize with a parent, you see it only as a violation of your rights but then I think that fair enough let gay guys give blood but keep the batches separate and then give the relatives of sick people the option to use that blood or not because if they aren't given the option to take that risk then their rights are kinda being violated too IMO.

L1011

You can't prove its higher risk and just tell me to accept it - how about you stop saying it is until you can find some proof, eh?

How does the post you quote back up anything you've said? I said certain groups who are definitively high risk are allowed donated, you posted a link to a post that doesn't refute that at all and then suggested it did?

I never said *all* gay males are on equal risk with the general population. Neither did I at any stage suggest that all should be allowed donate. Someone who's shagging around - hetero or homosexual - should be barred. Of course people could lie, but then again, what's to let the IBTS know someone's gay if they lie?

How do you know the history of *any* blood donor? Another question you can't answer.

Once again, you're bringing kids in to this. Very Helen Lovejoy "OH WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" isn't it. And let me assure you, the average relative of someone who's going to die if they don't get a blood transfusion gets offered blood from someone who might once have had sex with another man - as remember, you're banned forever - but which has passed the IBTS screening tests the same as every other sample - would be all too happy to sign the consent form. I've been in the situation of having close relatives need transfusions - father and brother within a year of each other, in fact. Have you?

Your last paragraph there barely parses, so I can't actually figure out what you mean with the last sentence fragment. 70 words is a bit long for a sentence.

Kazobel

You can't just accept it can you? it's against gay guys so it must be discrimination mustn't it? well I for one can see the reasoning behind it and would quite happily sign a petition to maintain the rule. You see I don't have to prove anything, all these big organizations with loads of funds behind them already have and to me the rule makes sense, all I see is logic and you've done nothing to change that in anyones eyes, all you've done for the last 2 pages is dissect my posts and criticized my punctuation but proved nothing really, well done, I'm sure it'll further your cause if everyone is made aware that not only are gay guys not allowed give blood but I can also make a 70 word sentence

L1011

So, you can't answer any of the questions I put to you with anything other than emotion and opinion, then. Great.

If you're going to make claims you have to prove them. Otherwise its just opinion and should be put across as such. You've made some fantastical claims in your posts and haven't provided any proof of any of them.

I've dissected your posts to show that you're passing off opinion as fact, and trying to bring emotional blackmail in to what is essentially a legal and scientific argument. I've not had anything to prove, so congratulations for noticing I've not proved anything...

Finally, what specifically did you mean with "You can't just accept it can you?"?

Chunky Monkey

I think this is my third time saying this on this thread but in 2003 60% of newly diagnosed cases of HIV were in heterosexuals.

Rev Hellfire

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

I think this is my third time saying this on this thread but in 2003 60% of newly diagnosed cases of HIV were in heterosexuals.

While the number of new cases is important, what is more important is the number of HIV cases per head of given population (heterosexuals vs Homosexual) it is my understanding that male gay community still is an order of magnitude greater. Added to which statically those who engage in anal sex have a higher risk of transmission.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

So, you can't answer any of the questions I put to you with anything other than emotion and opinion, then. Great.

If you're going to make claims you have to prove them. Otherwise its just opinion and should be put across as such. You've made some fantastical claims in your posts and haven't provided any proof of any of them.

I've dissected your posts to show that you're passing off opinion as fact, and trying to bring emotional blackmail in to what is essentially a legal and scientific argument. I've not had anything to prove, so congratulations for noticing I've not proved anything...

Finally, what specifically did you mean with "You can't just accept it can you?"?

Yes of course it's opinion, I never implied otherwise and I've openly admitted that all my "stats" were based on that opinion, my first post was my opinion and all my subsequent posts have been based on that and it's my opinion that gay guys should not be allowed donate blood, like it or not they are high risk. Like I've said all along if it was my kid I wouldn't take that risk nor would I want someone else to have the option of impressing that risk on my child/brother/sister/mother without my knowledge and I'd bet I'm not the only one.

L1011

So why did you persist to insist certain things were fact all the way through, then? You still won't go further than an "it just is" in stating why a monogamous homosexual relationship is higher risk than a monogamous homosexual one, for instance. Can't pretend you didn't say it - repeatedly.

And we go straight back to the emotional blackmailing. "Won't somebody think of the children!". This debate should be based entirely on fact, not opinion and emotion.

Kazobel

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

While the number of new cases is important, what is more important is the number of HIV cases per head of given population (heterosexuals vs Homosexual) it is my understanding that male gay community still is an order of magnitude greater. Added to which statically those who engage in anal sex have a higher risk of transmission.

But Rev this is the Politically Correct age, high risk means nothing, logic means nothing just as long as the minority is validated by society, so what if a couple of cancer patients die from an STD transmitted from infected blood? at least the option for that infected person to donate more is still there. Who cares about lives when equal rights are being violated?

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

So why did you persist to insist certain things were fact all the way through, then? You still won't go further than an "it just is" in stating why a monogamous homosexual relationship is higher risk than a monogamous homosexual one, for instance. Can't pretend you didn't say it - repeatedly.

But male/male sex is high risk and a lot more risk than male/female simple as

MYOB wrote: »

And we go straight back to the emotional blackmailing. "Won't somebody think of the children!". This debate should be based entirely on fact, not opinion and emotion.

But if you're the person that has to make the choice then it does become emotional, you have the freedom to base it only on facts not everyone is in that position and anyway if you want to base it on facts male/male anal sex is the highest risk, passing a HIV test 6 months ago doesn't mean you're still in the clear now so as I said (repeatedly) why should the blood donation services take that risk at all? unless you're all willing to pay for a HIV test, abstain from sex until you get the results and then donate and do that every time you donate then I can see the logic in the rule. That's my opinion as a parent, as a Transsexual and as someone who is also banned from donating.

L1011

That may be so, in certain circumstances, but how is it any higher risk in a monogamous relationship? It isn't. Its not possible for two people with no STIs to catch an STI off each other. I'd have thought that was patently obvious.

And anyway, insertive anal intercourse carries a lower risk of transmission than receptive vaginal - and both insertive and receptive fellatio are well below this too.* There are people who have never performed the receptive "role" - many of them, in fact - but who may have done one of the others. So saying that male/male sex is an outright higher risk is absolutely and utterly wrong.



Passing a HIV test apparently means nothing according to some on here, due to the gestation period of HIV. And anyway, the blood is tested by the IBTS anyway, meaning it has exactly the same effect.

*US govt. figures - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1 - but6 as you've already refused to believe our governments figures, I'm not expecting you to believe these either!

L1011

Kazobel wrote: »

at least the option for that infected person to donate more is still there. Who cares about lives when equal rights are being violated?

Erm, if you're found to have donated an infected sample, you aren't allowed donate any more. Please learn some of the basic facts before spouting off on one.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Erm, if you're found to have donated an infected sample, you aren't allowed donate any more. Please learn some of the basic facts before spouting off on one.

I'd hate to be the patient that information was found out from :eek:

L1011

Kazobel wrote: »

I'd hate to be the patient that information was found out from :eek:

I can't remember a case recently where it wasn't caught in the *extensive* screening the IBTS do to samples.

Do you have another argument against this other than obsessively going back to "I'd hate to be..."? You'd presumably hate to be the person that gets it off a sample that slips through the net now, too.

If they revise the rules on who can and can't donate correctly the chances of this happening would go down not up - currently a heterosexual who shags for Ireland is allowed donate, as is a former habitual user of 'ladies of the night' yet someone who had a blowjob off another bloke 25 years ago isn't. Which of those three groups has the lowest risk factor?

Restricting based on activity - "Have you had unprotected sex with...?" or even just "Have you had sex with more than one person in the past three months?" and so on would perform far more reliable filtering of risk groups than a blanket ban.

The_Minister

Kazobel wrote: »

I'd hate to be the patient that information was found out from :eek:

They test it before they give it to someone.
But tests have failure rates.

is_that_so

MYOB wrote: »

Theres a few problems with it that make it discrimination - namely that other high risk groups are exempted for a period of time, whereas me who have had sex with men are excluded forever. No accounting for when the (allegedly) 'risky' activity ended, unlike virtually ever other group.

Excluding high risk groups to reduce the effort of testing the blood is an absolutely horrendously dangerous thing to do, anyway - its almost more likely to cause someone to catch something than not.

I am pretty sure I am excluded forever having lived in the UK, much to my annoyance as a former donor, I don't see this as a personal discrimination. I may be no more high risk than any of the other convoluted scenarios presented here but I reluctantly accept it is to ensure the quality of the blood supply.

Considering how IBTS badly ran things during the awful factor D episode they are well within their right to be selective and lay down rules. I would suggest that it is erring on the side of extreme caution.

As an aside I heard an IBTS individual on radio some back say that only 4% of eligible donors donate anyway. Who's to say that the gay community, even if they were allowed to donate would have any high a participation rate. I would have thought energies might be better directed at that paltry figure instead.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

I can't remember a case recently where it wasn't caught in the *extensive* screening the IBTS do to samples.

Do you have another argument against this other than obsessively going back to "I'd hate to be..."? You'd presumably hate to be the person that gets it off a sample that slips through the net now, too.

If they revise the rules on who can and can't donate correctly the chances of this happening would go down not up - currently a heterosexual who shags for Ireland is allowed donate, as is a former habitual user of 'ladies of the night' yet someone who had a blowjob off another bloke 25 years ago isn't. Which of those three groups has the lowest risk factor?

Restricting based on activity - "Have you had unprotected sex with...?" or even just "Have you had sex with more than one person in the past three months?" and so on would perform far more reliable filtering of risk groups than a blanket ban.

Sorry but how is this not clear to you by now? I agree with this rule, I don't care what you or anyone else says, gay guys blood is high risk, it's logic and cost effective to do a blanket ban. Nothing I've read here would make me think otherwise, I hope the rule stands because it makes sense to me.

L1011

The UK ban covers living there for a year within a time range - I'm *almost* caught out by that but didn't live there long enough. Based on the length of time it took for vCJD to come out there's still a reason to keep the bar - although possibly not forever. The US has changed it ban to allow far longer in Europe (they initially banned all of Western Europe) bar the UK, for instance.

The Anti-D saga was in the past when samples weren't tested at all. The organisation is completely changed now - and yet they don't err on the side of caution, instead they bloc-exclude groups on perceived risk factor while allowing plenty of legitimately high risk groups donate.

L1011

Kazobel wrote: »

Sorry but how is this not clear to you by now? I agree with this rule, I don't care what you or anyone else says, gay guys blood is high risk, it's logic and cost effective to do a blanket ban. Nothing I've read here would make me think otherwise, I hope the rule stands because it makes sense to me.

Its clear to me that you agree with it. What's not clear to me is why you keep throwing strawman arguments based on emotional reasons to support it; why you keep making stuff up, refusing to believe government issued figures and insist people accept your inaccurate pronouncements as fact, though. None of that makes sense to me.

Kazobel

MYOB wrote: »

Its clear to me that you agree with it. What's not clear to me is why you keep throwing strawman arguments based on emotional reasons to support it; why you keep making stuff up, refusing to believe government issued figures and insist people accept your inaccurate pronouncements as fact, though. None of that makes sense to me.

"Straw man arguments" - an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I have not misrepresented anyones position I've merely agreed with the logic of the ban, I never refused to believe government issued figures because I never read them and I don't care how many there are I still wouldn't support it and I've not once insisted anything, as I've said enough times before this is all in my opinion so don't try put words in my mouth. Gay Male = High risk simple as, and yeah I do see it from an emotive point of view, I have 2 kids so why wouldn't I? I'd never want to know there is a risk of my kids becoming HIV from a blood transfusion and I'd bet I'm not the only one. Now you can sit here and claim it's not and emotional argument and should be looked at as scientific or political or any other bullsh!t but the simple fact is when it comes to loved ones not one person gives a toss about PC bullsh!t. It's logic, live with it.

L1011

There's more than one definition of a strawman argument.

You insist that homosexual monogamous relationships are higher risk than heterosexual ones. So yes, you have insisted something. This is impossible.

You refused to believe the ESRI results placed out in front of you on this thread - so unless you're not reading the thread, you read them. So yes, you've read government figures and refused to believe them.

You continue to personalise the argument with hypothetical situations (this is the strawman). And this isn't "PC bull****", you haven't got a notion of what "political correctness" means.

You agree with the ban, well and good. Could you stop wibbling about it please?