UK: Gay blood donor ban to be lifted

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by arkitect, Sep 8, 2011.

  1. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #1
    Progress of a kind.

    Big caveat: You can only donate if you have not had sex with another man in the previous 12 months.
    Well show me a gay man who hasn't? :confused:
    Guess that means all those celibate priests can line up… ;)

    BBC Link
     
  2. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #2
    Just wait until same-sex marriage becomes legal ;)
     
  3. Eraserhead, Sep 8, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2011

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Umm....no it doesn't. That's pretty limiting.
     
  5. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #5
    What do you think there is to compromise on? There is absolutely no reason to ban "gay blood."
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    Yeah it is a good compromise, You have to face the fact that gay people are more likely to have HIV. I don't want to get blood from someone who has HIV and it's too early to detect when they screen the blood, we have good enough testing now that a lifetime ban is unreasonable, but it's still not perfect. I hope that they have bans on straight people who engage in risky behaviors also.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    OK, are you going to ban black women too? Because they are a huge risk group for HIV as well.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-12/...ack-gay-men-hiv-than-white-women?_s=PM:HEALTH
     
  8. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    What's the cause of that though? If it can be proven that it is only because of their race then sure, but I think it is much more likely that it is because of different risky behaviors that those groups participate in. Men having sex with men is one thing that is easy to screen out, and other risky behaviors should be screened out as well.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Being gay doesn't give you HIV, nor does being black. That was a pretty offensive post. Shall we limit black women to sex once a year as well?
     
  10. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #10
    How so? First of all it's asking gays to be celibate for a year, and secondly it's fully honor system based. Makes no sense.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Honestly, I think it's a recipe for disaster.
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    No it doesn't, but having sex with other men does put you at higher risk. You don't deny that do you? And Black or white women and men who chose to engage in risky sexual activity wether that be heterosexual or homosexual should be banned from donating blood until it has been long enough to definitively rule out any infection.

    Also you're the one who says being black gives you HIV since you don't seem to realize that it's not their ethnicity that puts them at higher risk, but behaviors they choose to engage in, which may just happen to correlate with certain ethnicities and economic statuses.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    And how do you plan to weed all these people out? Take their word for it?
     
  14. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #14
    Granted I don't know how it works in the UK, but all donated blood in the US is rigorously tested for pathogens. So why are we discriminating?

    I suppose we should also ban heterosexual men and women who participate in anal sex, and those who have had >X sexual encounters in the past Y months. For completeness, let's just ban everyone but White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who faithfully adhere to the teachings of Jesus. They've gotta be safe, right?
     
  15. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #15
    Most Protestant sects consider other Protestant sects as heretics. So which ones are really faithfully adhering to the teachings of Jesus? "Heretic blood" is probably as bad as "Gay blood" in some peoples' eyes.
     
  16. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #16
    Unfortunately I think that is the only way to do it, it would be better if there was another way to do it, but I don't think there is. Isn't that what they did when they had a full ban on gays? I would hope that most people would be honest enough that they wouldn't try to circumvent the ban and hurt someone else.
     
  17. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #17
    Ethically then I think the only people who should be allowed to donate blood then are lesbians. They are the only demographic with incredibly low STD rates.

    But then that requires us to ignore the fact that all the blood is already tested anyway and that this is really a vestigial discriminatory policy that has survived because of cowardice from regulatory bodies to confront public opinion.
     
  18. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #18
    It's more invasive, but perhaps the thing they need to be asking people is when they last had a new partner. If you're hetero- or homo-monogamous, and your partner is faithful to you, and your partner is not HIV+, the fact that you've had sex of any kind with your partner in the last year is not a risk factor. The risk involves having had new partners or unprotected sex with someone for the first time, in the last year.

    They don't release all their data, so it's hard to argue with them, but the article implies that they did an actuarial analysis that found a risk plateau starting at 12 months and extending for any longer time. If they do actually have data that supports the idea that a window shorter than 12 months puts people at risk, I don't think this is exactly prejudiced behavior. Of course, they need to use this kind of protocol uniformly, and if that means that black women, white men, or Labor MPs shouldn't donate if they've had sex in the past year... then what's good for the goose should apply to the gander.
     
  19. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #19
    From the article it sounds like the reason for the 12 months is that before that the testing available isn't good enough to guarantee that the supply is safe, it doesn't have to do with wanting to discriminate. If tests get better and they can safely show that there is no increased risk from a shorter window then it should be made even shorter.
     
  20. (marc) macrumors 6502a

    (marc)

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Location:
    the woods
    #20
    Or sexual orientation. Lee's analogy does make sense.

    They sure would circumvent the ban to get the money.
     
  21. maril1111 macrumors 68000

    maril1111

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #21
    How does somebody being gay affect their blood or blood quality?? Does it apply to lesbians and trisexuals as well??

    Sounds like a really stupid ban to set in the first place..
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    I don't think this ban applies to people who are homosexual because of their orientation it's because of the activities they are involved in are risky. Someone could be Homosexual and choose not to have sex with other men and they would be able to donate blood, so his analogy doesn't make sense.

    And do they really give you money for donating blood in the UK? I don't think they do in the US.
     
  23. Firestar macrumors 68020

    Firestar

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Location:
    221B Baker Street.
    #23
    Sometimes companies offer compensation for donating blood. A few years ago DQ offered a pint of ice cream for x amount of blood.
     
  24. Daffodil macrumors 6502

    Daffodil

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    In a sunny state of mind
    #24
    Yeah, but "compensation" (whatever that means) and hard cash are two pretty different things in my opinion. Would anyone really think - hmm, I'm going to lie when then ask me questions to find out if I'm eligible to donate blood in order to get this pint of ice cream for free? I don't think so... (At least I hope not! :p)
     
  25. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #25
    The real problem is promiscuity. Last I checked, it was not only gay men who could choose to be promiscuous.
     

Share This Page