Blood
May 8th 2006, 1:30 pm
#136
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 732
Re: Blood
Originally Posted by Sass73
Just got to put my oar in again 
Having worked with blood for a number of years, we were always told that you have to treat every sample as if it is high risk. It is all well and good knowing that someone is HIV/Hep pos but what about the ones you don't know about. I would hope that you take the same precautions for all patients, not just the ones you know are a risk, for your own sake.
Having worked with blood for a number of years, we were always told that you have to treat every sample as if it is high risk. It is all well and good knowing that someone is HIV/Hep pos but what about the ones you don't know about. I would hope that you take the same precautions for all patients, not just the ones you know are a risk, for your own sake.
May 8th 2006, 1:31 pm
#137
ah-beng
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: ^.^
Posts: 3,113
Re: Blood
Enough is Enough already - im gonna fall off the wagon. hasn't this thread run itscourse (or vein)
May 8th 2006, 1:33 pm
#138
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 732
Re: Blood
Originally Posted by spalen
Enough is Enough already - im gonna fall off the wagon. hasn't this thread run itscourse (or vein)
May 8th 2006, 5:07 pm
#139
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Blood
Originally Posted by phoenixinoz
Thanks for that sassenach. .but I'm gonna play devils advocate
So the choice is this:
Either we take blood donated from gay people and increase blood supplies?
Or
We take less blood donations by not including gay blood and therefore by definition we test marginally less?
So the choice is this:
Either we take blood donated from gay people and increase blood supplies?
Or
We take less blood donations by not including gay blood and therefore by definition we test marginally less?
Last edited by Vash the Stampede; May 8th 2006 at 5:27 pm.
May 8th 2006, 5:27 pm
#140
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Blood
Originally Posted by phoenixinoz
And that's the point Badge.
Surely it shouldn't matter what people *think*.......what is important is that the rule makes sense and is non discriminatory
Whichever way we cut it gay and straight people can both carry HIV.
Yet only straight people can give blood.
All blood gets tested anyway.
So why is the rule one sided and discriminatory?
This....is the question
Surely it shouldn't matter what people *think*.......what is important is that the rule makes sense and is non discriminatory
Whichever way we cut it gay and straight people can both carry HIV.
Yet only straight people can give blood.
All blood gets tested anyway.
So why is the rule one sided and discriminatory?
This....is the question
Here's a news article on the subject from February this year:
Students around the United Kingdom have been protesting at National Blood Service (NBS) donation centres over the long-standing ban on gay men donating blood.
Men who have sex with men have been banned from giving blood since the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when HIV was a virus that principally affected gay men.
Back then, the ‘window period’ (the time it takes for an infected person to test positive following infection) was around three months, making the exclusion of high-risk groups essential to ensure a safe blood supply.
Since then, testing methods have become far more sophisticated, and HIV can now be detected within a week or so after initial infection.
However, the blood service says this small window period still poses a risk, which is why they continue to ban high-risk groups, such as gay men, from donating blood.
[...]
Gay men account for one third of new HIV infections in the UK, and the ban on gay donors is currently supported by most HIV organisations, including the largest AIDS charity in the UK, the Terrence Higgins Trust.
Fact: gay men constitute less than 6% of the UK population. Fact: gay men constitute one third of the UK's HIV cases. Fact: gay men constitute a high risk category.
Are we surprised that the blood banks are so reluctant to take blood from gay men? On the basis of the evidence before us, I don't see why we should be. Nor do I see how this policy can be called "homophobic" or "unfairly discriminatory."
It is no more discriminatory than the current ban against blood donations from people who lived in the UK at the height of the CJD outbreak.
You don't see people protesting about that policy on the basis that it is "Anglo-phobic" and "unfairly discriminatory", do you...?
May 9th 2006, 8:44 am
#141
Banned
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 880
Re: Blood
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
And the answer is that gay men still belong to a high risk category.
Here's a news article on the subject from February this year:
Students around the United Kingdom have been protesting at National Blood Service (NBS) donation centres over the long-standing ban on gay men donating blood.
Men who have sex with men have been banned from giving blood since the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when HIV was a virus that principally affected gay men.
Back then, the ‘window period’ (the time it takes for an infected person to test positive following infection) was around three months, making the exclusion of high-risk groups essential to ensure a safe blood supply.
Since then, testing methods have become far more sophisticated, and HIV can now be detected within a week or so after initial infection.
However, the blood service says this small window period still poses a risk, which is why they continue to ban high-risk groups, such as gay men, from donating blood.
[...]
Gay men account for one third of new HIV infections in the UK, and the ban on gay donors is currently supported by most HIV organisations, including the largest AIDS charity in the UK, the Terrence Higgins Trust.
Source.
Fact: gay men constitute less than 6% of the UK population. Fact: gay men constitute one third of the UK's HIV cases. Fact: gay men constitute a high risk category.
Are we surprised that the blood banks are so reluctant to take blood from gay men? On the basis of the evidence before us, I don't see why we should be. Nor do I see how this policy can be called "homophobic" or "unfairly discriminatory."
It is no more discriminatory than the current ban against blood donations from people who lived in the UK at the height of the CJD outbreak.
You don't see people protesting about that policy on the basis that it is "Anglo-phobic" and "unfairly discriminatory", do you...?
Here's a news article on the subject from February this year:
Students around the United Kingdom have been protesting at National Blood Service (NBS) donation centres over the long-standing ban on gay men donating blood.
Men who have sex with men have been banned from giving blood since the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when HIV was a virus that principally affected gay men.
Back then, the ‘window period’ (the time it takes for an infected person to test positive following infection) was around three months, making the exclusion of high-risk groups essential to ensure a safe blood supply.
Since then, testing methods have become far more sophisticated, and HIV can now be detected within a week or so after initial infection.
However, the blood service says this small window period still poses a risk, which is why they continue to ban high-risk groups, such as gay men, from donating blood.
[...]
Gay men account for one third of new HIV infections in the UK, and the ban on gay donors is currently supported by most HIV organisations, including the largest AIDS charity in the UK, the Terrence Higgins Trust.
Fact: gay men constitute less than 6% of the UK population. Fact: gay men constitute one third of the UK's HIV cases. Fact: gay men constitute a high risk category.
Are we surprised that the blood banks are so reluctant to take blood from gay men? On the basis of the evidence before us, I don't see why we should be. Nor do I see how this policy can be called "homophobic" or "unfairly discriminatory."
It is no more discriminatory than the current ban against blood donations from people who lived in the UK at the height of the CJD outbreak.
You don't see people protesting about that policy on the basis that it is "Anglo-phobic" and "unfairly discriminatory", do you...?
May 9th 2006, 4:47 pm
#142
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Blood
Thanks mate.
