Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,001-7,050 of 12,463

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "WHAT?! Really...?

The first thing that comes to mind is .... I thought taking a blood transfusion is "safe" ... the blood is tested, etc.... I thought accepting an organ is "safe" ... testing is done, etc.... So, if this is the case, is it not safe to accept a blood transfusion? That's my first thought. ..."

Greetings Shannon :)

Absolute, unadulterated truth .... horribly and sadly true.

Evidence for blood donorship restrictions, in Canada, can be found on their website. The issue continues to be hotly contested in Canada, but Canadian Blood Services (I believe that's their public name) continues to maintain the misguided, and outdated data.

As for organ donation ... again absolutely true. In this case, it's more of a policy position than practice as most organ donation authorization is done via driver's licenses or other ID where one's sexuality is not disclosed. However, if the donor is known to be a gay man .... no go on the donation.

US friends tell me that this is also the official case in the US although I have not checked the relevant sources myself.

You wrote, "Or, is there a ridiculous bias against gay men?"

Affirmative ... ridiculous and based on a whole host of beliefs--religious, political, scientific or otherwise--that no longer have a basis in Scientific proof. Keep in mind that the disease that we now know as HIV/AIDS was initially discovered in gay men and was once known as "Gay Cancer". The fact that this disease is weighted towards heterosexual women in many parts of the world continues to be discounted by those that blame gay men for it.

As to another option, may I offer Rampant Stupidity and Excessive Blaming ....

[Carol]

without religion

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Good answer. Of course you never know until you're in the situation, but I feel that I would have an extremely hard time letting someone I love sacrifice themselves for me, and a difficult time not doing everything I could to ensure they survived.

Kind of selfish in a bizarre way. I would not want to be the one who lived on without them. "

First, as an aside .... This keeps reminding me of freshman year in college. A bunch of us, in this particular dorm, were dating and hanging out one night and someone started asking all of these questions. Like ... For a million dollars, would you have sex with ...? Or, if you were married with a child and something happened and you could only save your spouse or your child, who would you save? Were we weird, or have other people had those conversations.

Regarding the last question, ....

All of the girls said we'd save our children. The boys ...? First, they went on and on about how they'd save both. They were amazing, after all, and could find a way. When pushed, the overwhelming majority said they'd save their wives.

:o

Now that I've gotten that out of my system ... I've been thinking about it since yesterday ....

It's a really weird question, isn't it. I think it sort of depends on the situation. If it's a ... you're walking down the road and a runaway car is going to crash into you .... I think it would be about who had the fastest reflexes, how one reacts in a crisis, etc.... In that Titanic example, how would one decide ...?

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "WHAT?! Really...?

I don't even know what to say. I wasn't aware of this and am less than impressed. It's mind-boggling to me, frankly. To tell you the truth, I'm sort of speechless.

No, I'm not. How in hell is this justified? Based on what? Is no one asking those questions? Does the media not report on this? How many times have they done stories on whether or not Anderson Cooper is gay? Who cares, by the way? Story after story about marriage equality. Fine. But, really .... This has been out there. This has been out there for years, and .... Why isn't this also being reported? Frankly, why aren't gay rights activists screaming about this? Although, perhaps they're not given airtime.

Are any doctors or scientists fighting this? Publishing papers? Asking to give testimony ... somewhere? Who made these policies? The government? The Department of Health, aka the government? Heck, I don't even know who is in charge of the blood supply. An organization like the Department of Health, or ....

I just don't even know what to say.

[Robin]

I never heard of the ban on gays not to be able to donate blood in the UK and in Canada. I think this is discrimination. What has this world come to when people such as this group want to donate and they are turned away.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "WHAT?! Really...?

I don't even know what to say. I wasn't aware of this and am less than impressed. It's mind-boggling to me, frankly. To tell you the truth, I'm ..."

It comes up in the news every now and then, although generally as a secondary data point to yet another screw-up that Canadian Blood Services has made.

Our blood supply used to be maintained / monitored by a government agency (branch of Health Ministry), but it was privatized many years ago as a result of severe mishandling by the government. Doctors and scientists fight about this issue all the time, but it rarely gets coverage because there are--admittedly--other outrages for us to focus on.

One day, a government muckity muck will need an organ or blood donation, the only immediate family member that is compatible will be a gay man, and then there might be a more general uproar .... not until that day however.

As the injustices towards GLBT(Q) people are many and varied, we sort of have to pick the battles that we fight at any time. Same-sex marriage in Canada? Check. Full employment protection regardless of sex, gender, or sexual identity? Check. Full rights and responsibilities as parents? Working on that. Support for mental health issues specific to GLBT(Q) people? Also working. Blood / organ donation rights? Further down the list....

[Hazel]

They're starting to relax it a little in the UK, but I still think the wording of the new law is taking the piss and is discriminatory, the idea that they have to have been abstinent for a year still basically says "no blood donoring for you"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-1482...

[cHriS]

It is easy to sit at a PC, and on a forum like this give an opinion of WHAT you think the world should be like. And when a topic like this one 'gays not being allowed to give blood' is discussed, I can feel the shock horror, being expressed in a lot of posts.

This is a bit like Chinese whispers, each time something is posted the next post has to trump it with more 'concern' and then look for something to blame, religion, bad science whatever that is, etc.

Why should the medical profession take risks, no matter how small, just because some people think we should treat everyone the same when clearly not everyone is the same.

If there is a risk of infection associated with sexual behaviours of some gays, then that risk should be kept to a mimimum. Suggesting that there could be a risk from other groups of people in society does not alter the risk some gays may pose.

That said.............

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blo...

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Why should the medical profession take risks, no matter how small, just because some people think we should treat everyone the same when clearly not everyone is the same.

If there is a risk of infection associated with sexual behaviours of some gays, then that risk should be kept to a mimimum. Suggesting that there could be a risk from other groups of people in society does not alter the risk some gays may pose."

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with being PC.

Are scientists and people within the medical profession playing it straight with us or not? Period. When they test the blood and do whatever they do with the blood, is it safe? Is it not? (Personally, given the fact that I have a functioning brainstem and know you have to be tested for HIV six months and one year after an encounter to know for sure, I've always thought the scientists were full of absolute crap when they said the blood was "safe" .... Right?)

Now, if the blood isn't safe, there are a hell of a lot of people who shouldn't be donating. Not PC. True. Come on .... And, ...! In this country, you have places that pay people for their blood. Yeah, I can't wait to get blood donated to me by a prostitute or a homeless person who shoots up between his toes, because they want to be paid for giving blood. Woo hoo! Sign me up, personally, for those bags of blood. I mean, seriously ....

We know, know beyond doubt that a greater percentage of African Americans and heterosexual women have been contracting HIV over the past several years than gay men. That's a fact. Are we moving to disallow those segments of the population from donating? Yes, gay men face a certain risk ... given the act and possibility of tearing. Okay. Let's say it. But .... They're not the only ones who take part in that particular act and face that risk. And, ... it would seem, given the numbers, that they're doing something differently (safe sex) and aren't becoming infected at the same rate as in the past.

So, if there's a risk to the blood supply, there's a risk to the blood supply. Instead denying it or saying something totally and completely stupid, like ... gay men can't give blood, why not really get into it and deal with it? If you've had anal sex, you can't give blood. If you've had unprotected sex, you can't give blood. You can't pay people to give blood. Etc....

If we're going to get real about protecting the populous, then I strongly suggest we actually get real about it.

Or, ... is it just bigotry against gay men?

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "[begin GR rant]"

QfT :-)

C-Cose wrote: "I agree--to a point--with many of them and find myself beginning to see a view of the world that I had been unable to do in the past."

In the end I never expect anyone in a debate to completely change their mind, or even agree, but I think part of the reason for debating things is so we can understand each others point of view.

Being a former theist, who then followed various paths that you'd maybe term 'spiritualism' until finally reaching the point I am at now I can understand a lot of believers points of view, I just find it hard to understand being satisfied with it.

C-Cose wrote: "I had always downplayed / ignored / lessened the value of those that identify as atheists (practitioners of Science for this discussion) as I've always perceived them to be opposite to Religion, therefore not effecting me as a Spiritual person."

Funnily enough I sometimes label myself as an atheist as a form of shorthand, but I do not like the term at all. Apart from the quite admirable job of Christians making it a pejorative, it is also a label that uniquely defines itself as what you are not, rather than what you are. Not believing in a God is something I can do quite easily without requiring any mental effort. From my point of view the idea of humanistic deities/mysticism is a tiny restricted view of the universe, therefore actively rejecting that view is a tiny sliver of that. As an astrophysicist I see the universe as so much more, and so much unknown left to explore.

Unfortunately, atheism/atheist to me is a small minded label that encourages people to think its narrow minded, rather than the opposite.

C-Cose wrote: "Can you see where I have made the distinction for both Science and Religion in point #6 of my long-ago post emphasizing that behaviour and ideology must not be confused?"

I saw that, but to my mind ideology is the point. Science modifies it's own ideology as it goes, even to the point of modifying its own methodology.

C-Cose wrote: "Both Science and Religion are capable of "good" and "bad" practices in the furtherance of their underlying principles. A lot of "bad science" has been practiced for no other reason than to investigate: e.g. who can build a better, bigger, more destructive weapon when something that already exists would do the job just fine."

Actually I would dispute that. For example research into the biggest weapons was not funded by science, it was funded by the political ideologues of Capitalism and Communism who both wanted bigger weapons to intimidate their enemies. Before that the political conflict of WW2 led to the development of the A-Bomb.

C-Cose wrote: "The underlying ideology of Science is not necessarily changed by the result(s) of the investigation into that weapon."

But 'science' is not calling for the development of weapons. It is being used to develop weapons and indeed some scientists take peaceful ideas and develop them into weapons, but that still isn't 'science' calling for it. It is the political or economic motivations that calls for research into weapons.

There is no scientific theory that calls for the development of weapons as a necessity, there is no scientific theory that calls for the murder of other people.

Religions do.

C-Cose wrote: "I think we are both seeing a net negative effect but assign the responsibility for that differently."

That's because religion provides value judgements, motivations and supposed 'morality'. Science is a tool.

If a man deliberately kills another man with a Colt 45 pistol, do you blame the people that developed the gun or the man who fired it? If he killed the person with a knife, do you blame the knife maker? If he killed them with a rock, who do you blame?

Science was certainly misused and abused for atrocities, and some scientists did take advantage of the political situation to engage in terrible experiments, but science was not the causative factor.

C-Cose wrote: "Did religious dogma play a part in the Holocaust? Abolutely! Was it the primary driving force behind the atrocities?"

The primary driving force was definitely the movement for political and military power, and the prejudice inherited from religion was fairly cynically exploited (as it is being now in the states), but this is the thing I dislike about belief, that it disables the critical faculties that should have made most of the people involved think "WtF?".

C-Cose wrote: "I find the stats that you found on WWII Germany interesting and agree that they give the perception that Christianity was prevalent in Germany at that time. I also happen to think that statistics--especially census--are at best a simplistic overview / snapshot of a specific moment in time. They may be the easiest tool that we have .... but they certainly aren't the best."

But it is much better than anecdotal evidence. 94% claimed to be some flavour of Christian, it's a bit much to assume that they were saying it just out of habit.

C-Cose wrote: ""They were all anti-Semites so ...." tends to negate / lessen the responsibility that Science had in that dark chapter of history."

Again I see it the other way. Evangelistic Christians are quick to try to imply that the Third Reich was a atheist organisation that worshipped science, but there is no evidence for that and a lot against it.

Again why does "science" have blame. Indeed scientists were involved, but so were soldiers so do we blame "military" for the atrocities? Or "Politics" as politicians were certainly more the blame for permitting the crimes. Or should we blame the pope for failing to excommunicate those Nazi scientists and politicians when previous popes were happy to excommunicate scientists who did not commit anything like that?

Unless you can show that a peer-reviewed scientific theory called for the murder of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and political and religious enemies of the state, I cannot see how you can honestly blame 'science'.

C-Cose wrote: "Gay men in the US, UK, and Canada, are ineligible for both blood and organ donation. Against all scientific evidence to the contrary, they are still considered too high a risk for fatal disease transfer through those donations, although all other major groups that used to share "high risk" status are able to donate freely. Policy makers continue to use "scientific evidence" to support this decision."

I think you said it yourself above (my emphasis). Quite often people try to back their prejudices with science to legitimise it, hence "Creationism" and the "Family Research Council". But it isn't science because they are starting with a pre-selected conclusion and then selecting evidence to prove it. That isn't science.

C-Cose wrote: "I say that this is an instant where "bad science" has been further twisted as a means to an end."

Agreed. Yet I would say that "Bad Science" is by definition "Not Science". It masquerades as science just as many religions masquerade as morality.

C-Cose wrote: "You wouldn't "believe" how many times I had to find a different word for belief as I've been writing this response ...lol."

Don't I know it :-D

C-Cose wrote: "As I remember it, you wrote in an earlier post that "belief" was something temporary until a better explanation made itself known. Please correct me if I've mis-stated that."

A little bit. I was saying that some people define that as belief (as in the statement 'I believe that the Dallas Cowboys will win this season'). Personally I avoid this as it gets confused with the markedly different definition (i.e. "I believe in God, and nothing will change that belief")

C-Cose wrote: "I've redefined "belief" for myself as "a value that is unlikely to change.""

That is the terminology I use. Which is why I use terms like "opinion" for 'temporary beliefs'.

C-Cose wrote: "If I am acting on a belief, rather than an understanding or perception, how will that effect others? How do I best limit that effect on others--while still recognizing that others' perceptions of my actions are not mine to control? How do I live my life where "best practices" dovetail with either my scientific or spiritual beliefs?"

That is what I am talking about. My point is it is wrong to allow prejudice based on belief to effect other people unless that belief has an independently verified basis that has substantial proof.

As for just having the "right" to hold a personal prejudice based on unfounded belief as long as it doesn't effect anyone, well it becomes extremely hard to avoid this. Whether you end up voting for a candidate based on their stance of denying people the right to marry, or whether you simply repeat in public the unfounded accusation that something is morally wrong, without any support for that statement but dogma. In either case you end up negatively effecting other people with prejudice.

This is why I dislike 'belief' as we define it.

C-Cose wrote: "In summary, our discussion has taught me some things about myself today. I've also become more familiar with your mode of discussion. I can't say that we fully agree on many things but I can say that I can understand your point of view."

If we have opened up each others minds at all, then it doesn't really matter if we agree entirely. In my opinion the thinking about these ideas are a goal in themselves, so thank you. :-)

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Why should the medical profession take risks, no matter how small, just because some people think we should treat everyone the same when clearly not everyone is the same. "

Depends whether the risks are uniformly applied according to evidence rather than based on ideological grounds, and those risks are compared to others.

After all one of the biggest risks is "we don't have enough donors". If I was bleeding to death then I think blood with a 1% chance of infection is better than a lack of blood leading to 100% chance of death!

Again it's not about treating people as if they were the same, it's about treating people fairly.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Why should the medical profession take risks, no matter how small, just because some people think we should treat everyone the same when clearly not everyone is the same. "

Depends w..."

Hmmm.... Is it just a 1% chance? Does it depend on where you live? And, if the chance is so minimal, why say gay men can't donate? The whole thing makes me question everything, truthfully.

True story ....

About five years ago, I found out I was severely anemic. I was two points away from a blood transfusion. After months of tests and IV's of iron once a week, my body started making red blood cells again. It had stopped, which was very bad ... we were about to take about a horrid and rare cancer. After all of that, the doctors still couldn't tell me what happened to my body and why it happened.

At any rate, I told my doctors I would not have a blood transfusion. Was it about religion? That's what they asked me. Hell, no! I even said, "Hell, no! It's about the fact that I don't trust you when you say the blood supply is safe. Riiigghhtttt...!"

They told me it was safe. I told them they were NOT to give me a transfusion. Their reply, "Don't get in a car accident."

Knowing my luck, ... There was no way I was going to have a transfusion. Even as sick as I was ....

Different people might handle that question differently.

If I did get in an accident and was going to die without the transfusion, would I have taken back my absolute refusal for such treatment ...?

I don't know, but ....

Going back to the original point, though, ...

Is this about fact or ideology?

And, I didn't think today's scientists made decisions based on ideology and that there were checks in place to stop such things.

Mildly confused ...

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "
If I was bleeding to death then I think blood with a 1% chance of infection is better than a lack of blood leading to 100% chance of death

You use the word 'if'. Well 'if' does not apply right now (at least in the uk) so that 1 % is not a risk that we have to be concerned about. It would be interesting to know how you got that 1% fact.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Hmmm.... Is it just a 1% chance?"

No idea, I haven't checked. I was making a hypothetical statement.

Shannon wrote: "Does it depend on where you live? And, if the chance is so minimal, why say gay men can't donate?"

Again, no idea of the actual science studies involved (yet) but based on the links provided the real issue seems to be with Anal sex (which does have a higher risk of passing infections) so anal sex, or oral sex with a partner that is likely to have had anal sex, is a higher risk.

However, it later tacitly admits to the idea that they are more comfortable with rejecting gay men who have had any sex, rather than broach the subject of anal sex with the ladies.

"Based on published data, the review also concluded that the introduction of extensive donor questions regarding sexual behaviour could lead to a loss of existing donors who may find the process intrusive." - http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blo...

Now the study may indeed be a good scientific reason, but it says a lot more about the relative taboos remaining in our society.

Shannon wrote: "The whole thing makes me question everything, truthfully."

Well you know I welcome that anyway :-)


Shannon wrote: "At any rate, I told my doctors I would not have a blood transfusion. Was it about religion? That's what they asked me. Hell, no! I even said, "Hell, no! It's about the fact that I don't trust you when you say the blood supply is safe. Riiigghhtttt...!""

A fair answer. Though I would ask what had shaken your faith so badly in the US system? Was it independent reports of statistics or anecdotal/media coverage of scares?

(Though knowing the differences between blood donation in the US and Europe I do understand the concerns, not to mention the US medical system in general).

It kind of reflects back to a point a while ago about vaccines. There is a belief amongst some that vaccines are intrinsically dangerous, I say belief because the dangers are scientifically known to be tiny, especially when compared to the danger of not having the vaccine and indeed of having unvaccinated members of the population for a disease to get a foothold and mutate.

Shannon wrote: "And, I didn't think today's scientists made decisions based on ideology and that there were checks in place to stop such things."

Actually it is more the other way around. Scientific evidence is meant to be one of the checks, but it is routinely ignored by policy makers if it conflicts with ideology. Everything from opposition to gay marriage to economics to healthcare to education, routinely scientists are ignored if they do not support the ideals of the policy makers, not the other way around.

Imagine a world were policies from economics to social all had scientific backing for the validity of their claims. Imagine how healthy and wealthy our society might be when policies proven to work are put in place?

I appreciate that some policies are incredibly complex and little unbias research has been done, but it is a dream of mine that one day leaders will aspire to what works, rather than an ideological choice.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: No idea, I haven't checked. I was making a hypothetical statement. "..."

So why pick 1%, why not. 19%?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "So why pick 1%, why not. 19%?"

Because if chance of infection was that high then bigots wouldn't have to worry much about the gay population?

Moreover since 1996 there has been less than 100 cases in the UK of infections passed on by blood, so for a sample to have increased to as high a risk of 1% could be considered hyperbole on my part.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "A fair answer. Though I would ask what had shaken your faith so badly in the US system? Was it independent reports of statistics or anecdotal/media coverage of scares?"

My mother worked for the medical practice board in our state, which certifies doctors and investigates doctors for misconduct. I heard a lot of bad doctor stories. Further, I had, as I said, a functioning brainstem. If you're told to be tested 6 and 12 months after an "encounter" or a relationship or an assault, in order to be sure you don't have HIV, why would I believe the blood supply is safe? What if Jane Doe donated a month after having unprotected sex or using a dirty needle or ...? That blood wouldn't necessarily test positive. Those were my reasons. Nothing to do with media coverage, etc...

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "My mother worked for the medical practice board in our state, which certifies doctors and investigates doctors for misconduct. I heard a lot of bad doctor stories. Further, I had, as I said, a functioning brainstem. If you're told to be tested 6 and 12 months after an "encounter" or a relationship or an assault, in order to be sure you don't have HIV, why would I believe the blood supply is safe? What if Jane Doe donated a month after having unprotected sex or using a dirty needle or ...? That blood wouldn't necessarily test positive. Those were my reasons. Nothing to do with media coverage, etc..."

Fair enough.

To be honest any medical procedure, drug or treatment you are playing percentages. A certain percentage of people will die from complications in certain surgery, a certain percentage will die due to a reaction to a drug (even if they've had the drug fine previously). Medical treatment is all about managing the risks compared to the risks of not having the treatment.

Sad case today, I have two friends with Leukaemia. Literally less than a couple of hours ago the one I used to work with has told me that it has come back and now the doctors do not want to treat him because "the chances of him being paralysed by the treatment is too high to risk the quality of life for the time he has left"...

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Actually it is more the other way around. Scientific evidence is meant to be one of the checks, but it is routinely ignored by policy makers if it conflicts with ideology. Everything from opposition to gay marriage to economics to healthcare to education, routinely scientists are ignored if they do not support the ideals of the policy makers, not the other way around.

Imagine a world were policies from economics to social all had scientific backing for the validity of their claims. Imagine how healthy and wealthy our society might be when policies proven to work are put in place?"

First, I find myself wondering who makes the policies regarding blood and organ donations? I confess I've not gone to the recent links people have posted. Was that question answered there? Are we talking policies set by politicians or scientists and/or medical professionals?

Regarding the idea that policies should be based on scientific evidence, ....

I'd likely be okay with that ... IF ... the scientists weren't biased (something I'm still not convinced of in all cases) and if they actually shared the actual facts with us. For example, in my experience, doctors say the blood supply is safe. Safe, safe, safe. Only when questioned and questioned very specifically, do they start to hem and haw. Only when I launched into my questions about testing at 6 months and 12 months and what if .... Only then did they admit the truth ... sort of. In all reality, they basically told me not to worry my pretty little head over it and do what they said needed doing in order to save me from disaster. There was a greater chance of x than y, so I just needed to trust them. Riiiggghhtt.... Maybe, but, ultimately, it should have been my choice, and I should have been given all of the facts in order to make an informed decision. (I now have different doctors.)

You see, in my mind, it's a little game some scientists and doctors play. They know what's best for us. (A blood transfusion, for example.) They know the odds of it being tainted are smaller than the odds of someone getting even more sick or, frankly, dying if that person were to get in an accident of some kind. (Say it's safe. Put the person at ease.) And, again, please note ... I said some. Ends. Means. Justified.

This doesn't work for me. At all. I'm not overly excited about someone or a small group of people, who think they know what's best for the populous or for me, to withhold the truth or fudge things or ... in order to get an end result that might, ultimately, be in the person's best interests.

I don't think the ends justify the means. That's not who I am. It is my personal belief that some scientists and doctors (among others) do think the ends justify the means.

Given that, I'd actually want to see the evidence and know it's factual.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "My mother worked for the medical practice board in our state, which certifies doctors and investigates doctors for misconduct. I heard a lot of bad doctor stories. Further, I had, a..."

I agree about risks. I do think the risks should be explained, though.

I'm sorry about your friends.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Moreover since 1996 there has been less than 100 cases in the UK of infections passed on by blood, so for a sample to have increased to as high a risk of 1% could be considered hyperbole on my part. ."

Less than 100 cases? But that is without the blood from the part of the gay community we are discussing, so your figure is not relevant.

Gary wrote: Because if chance of infection was that high then bigots wouldn't have to worry much about the gay population?

Ex Prime Minister Gordon Browm lost the last general election because of the frivolous use of the word bigot. Similar to the way you are using it now.

[Robin]

Would this be part of the discussion, Why do Jehovah's Witnessess not get blood transfusions? Does anyone know? As far as vaccines, I think the one in question for kids is the MMR since some parents thought that this led to autism. Isn't there just as much risk for even getting the flu with the flu shot? Just thought I would give my two cents worth.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "If we're going to get real about protecting the populous, then I strongly suggest we actually get real about it.

Or, ... is it just bigotry against gay men?"

BRAVO Shannon!!!!

I have yet to hear that level of honesty from any Canadian official that is opposed to disalowing gay men from blood / organ donation.

It is "the act" that makes some men (and women) cringe, which fosters bias and bigotry, which leads to asinine policy decisions.

If, as cHriS says, "Why should the medical profession take risks, no matter how small, just because some people think we should treat everyone the same when clearly not everyone is the same.", then all people that have engaged in "the act" should be disallowed. But, you see, that won't happen because it's not okay to ask a heterosexual person if they've done this ... but it's perfectly okay to assume that a gay man has.

Bigotry. Bias. Blinders. Stupidity. Misapplied "risk management". Spade.

[Gryph]

Robin wrote: "Would this be part of the discussion, Why do Jehovah's Witnessess not get blood transfusions? Does anyone know? As far as vaccines, I think the one in question for kids is the MMR since some pare..."

Greetings Robin :)

A little googling and I found this little nugget which answers many questions about JWs and blood. The underlying tenet, as I read it, is that once blood has left the body "it should be disposed of in line with God's Law: 'You should pour it out upon the ground as water.'-Deuteronomy 12:24".

Typical cherry-picking of a holy book, imo. They don't seem to get that "best practices" of medicine at the time included animal urine as an antiseptic, moss and poultices for bandages, and "freshly cleaned" wrappings of whatever cloth was handy. Oh ... and there was the praying too.

As to vaccines, you are correct in that it centers around the MMR vaccine--one of the most common / required vaccinations in young children. Feel free to put on a pot of coffee and settle in for a long night of googling debate on that subject. Either side of that debate has proponents that have left their home villages without an idiot *eg* :)

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "If we have opened up each others minds at all, then it doesn't really matter if we agree entirely. In my opinion the thinking about these ideas are a goal in themselves, so thank you. :-)"

Agreed Gary :)

I don't have anything else to add to our discussion at this point. As of this moment, my responses would be a succession of "Hmmmmm", "food for thought", "I agree" and a few twitters.

I just wanted to acknowledge that this discussion with you is helping me in our common goal of thinking on these things. :)

[cHriS]

C-Cose wrote: If, as cHriS says, "Why should the medical profession take risks, no matter how small, just because some people think we should treat everyone the same when clearly not everyone is the same.", then all people that have engaged in "the act" should be disallowed. But, you see, that won't happen because it's not okay to ask a heterosexual person if they've done this ... but it's perfectly okay to assume that a gay man has.

Bigotry. Bias. Blinders. Stupidity. Misapplied "risk management". Spade.

It is okay to assume that, because it happens to be a reasonable assumption, maybe not always a correct one, but a reasonable one.

The issue here is ‘risk’ not bigotry, as a couple of people here have suggested. If for example a person comes through a major operation and then because of contaminated blood dies, when this could have been avoided if we had not been more concerned about gay rights; that cannot by justified.

Why would a gay man who has had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, and knowing that he could be at risk of infection which is associated with his sexual behaviour, want to give blood? I can think of no reason other than to be malicious.

I get fed up with people using the word bigot to try and get the upper hand in a discussion, this is deceit
and it happens a lot. The last thing a person who is not a bigot or a racist wants is to be tagged as such. Usually it is the person who is better educated or is a better wordsmith that uses such name calling ,and the other person who something is not as fluent at putting his point across just backs away from the discussion.

I would not drink tap water in an Asian country because I don’t want to risk getting infected, not because I am racist. I did not drink the tap water when I was in Florida in July because I did not want to get infected ( you should not drink the water there after a hurricane and until it is safe) not because I don’t like Americans.

You should not give blood in the UK if you have received blood or think you may have received blood during the course of any medical treatment or procedure anywhere in the world since 1st January 1980. I bet there some here that view that as racist. I view it as protecting UK citizens.


It is "the act" that makes some men (and women) cringe, which fosters bias and bigotry, which leads to asinine policy decisions.

Yes you are correct and if some do cringe, then so what, it is an un-natural act. But I guess that most people can seperate the act from the person and not show bias and bigotry. And if some can't then so what, it is not many miles away from what people think here about those with a religion.

[Shanna]

Robin wrote: "Would this be part of the discussion, Why do Jehovah's Witnessess not get blood transfusions? Does anyone know? As far as vaccines, I think the one in question for kids is the MMR since some pare..."
I once had a patient explain to me that once it has left the body it loses soul, therefore should not be put back into the body because it somehow taints the body, I asked about food but he couldn't explain the difference.
We tried to save his life with synthetic plasma (intraoperatively and postoperatively), it didn't work. But, thats not to definitively say blood would have worked either.

[Gryph]

cHriS wrote: "Why would a gay man who has had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, and knowing that he could be at risk of infection which is associated with his sexual behaviour, want to give blood? I can think of no reason other than to be malicious."

Greetings cHriS,

In that case then ....

Why would a heterosexual man who has had anal or oral sex with a woman in the past 12 months, and knowing that he could be at risk of infection which is associated with his sexual behaviour, want to give blood? I can think of no reason other than to be malicious.

The risk of infection is equal across all ages, biological sexes, genders, sexualities, and races. Goose v. Gander.

As you don't like the use of "bigotry", I propose "uneducated about the scientific facts", "responding to the gross factor only", "despising the 'other'", "feeling superior because one doesn't engage in 'the act'" .....

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "The issue here is ‘risk’ not bigotry"


cHriS ...

If the issue were truly about risk, no one who has ...

a) had unprotected sex, at least w/in the last 12 months
b) had anal sex, at least w/in the last 12 months
c) has used dirty needles in the last 12 months

...would be able to donate blood or organs.

Right?

Take the word "bigotry" out of the equation. You don't seem to appreciate that word. Okay. Take gay men out of the discussion. Then, we won't need to focus on being politically correct.

I'm not being flip.

Really and truly, let's wipe the slate clean and take all of that out of the picture.

Let me put it to you this way.

You seem to be the type of guy who wants to protect women and children. Right? You see that as an honorable duty.

Imagine, God forbid, that your wife or your child for some horrible reason required a blood transfusion. Would you want your wife or child to receive blood donated by some 30 year old guy who has had sex with around 90 women, some of it unprotected? Would you want them to have a transfusion given by a woman who is dating a drug dealer ... both of whom use drugs and share needles? Would you want the woman you love to get a transfusion from a woman who has been faithful to her new husband and he to her ... but ... they experimented with anal sex and have only been married for two months and only together for 8 months and he had unprotected sex with a few women in the months prior to meeting his wife and ....?

I can't believe, if we were in the same room, that you'd look me dead in the eye and say, "Shannon, I'd be okay with my wife and/or my child getting blood from people who have taken such risks." You'd never say that. Right? I mean, ... never.

Either the blood supply is safe and it's no big deal to accept transfusions because there's next to no chance that anyone could get HIV as a result of said transfusion. Or ... there is a risk.

If there is a risk, .... Well, hell flipping fire...! Maybe, just maybe, we should deal with the damned risk. Maybe we should decide what the risks might be ... and make policies across the board.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals partake in anal sex. Hey, I'll say it. Hello.... Not everyone. Heck, I don't even know what the percentages might be. But, I know both gay men and heterosexual couples partake in that. The risk, tearing, would be the same for both. (I'm not even going to ask whether or not you consider it an "unnatural" act for both.) If that's the main risk, homosexuals and heterosexuals who have engaged in that should be seen to present the same risk ... if they've partaken in that particular act. (I don't mean the word "act" to be denigrating.)

I'm not going to make the same point for each and every risk factor.

But, if it's truly about risk, that's how we'd deal with this.

When we don't, I find myself wondering at the reasons behind that. It leads me to wonder if it has something to do with bigotry. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. (Or, do people not think or admit that heterosexual couples have and will continue to have anal sex? If that's the case, I'm even more concerned about the intelligence and judgment of the people who are running our governments.)

[cHriS]

C-Cose wrote: "Why would a "

That is not a defence for why gay men should give blood.

You can dress the word bigotry up how you like, but you are still 'pot stirring'
If a decision is made by the NHS it is for the benefit of all not just for those gay men who have been excluded. Gay men may also one day require a blood transfusion.

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Why would a heterosexual man who has had anal or oral sex with a woman in the past 12 months, and knowing that he could be at risk of infection which is associated with his sexual behaviour, want to give blood? I can think of no reason other than to be malicious.

The risk of infection is equal across all ages, biological sexes, genders, sexualities, and races. Goose v. Gander."

Like. Click.

[Gryph]

cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "Why would a "

That is not a defence for why gay men should give blood.

You can dress the word bigotry up how you like, but you are still 'pot stirring'
If a decision is made by the..."

You're absolutely correct cHris ... it's an argument for why nobody that engages in risky behaviours associated with gay men should be able to give blood.

Oh ... I'm sorry ... are topics about *booming voice* gay men .... considered "pot stirring" also? Would you please be so kind as to forward me a list of forbidden topics in this discussion?

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "Why would a "

That is not a defence for why gay men should give blood.

You can dress the word bigotry up how you like, but you are still 'pot stirring'
If a decision is made by the..."


cHriS ...

Do you really not see that homosexual and heterosexual couples engage in risky sex, including anal sex, every day? Do you truly not think that, given high risk behaviors, homosexuals and heterosexuals will develop HIV? Do you think, given the same behaviors, only homosexuals will contract HIV? Do you think HIV differentiates between homosexuals and heterosexuals?

If there is a risk, there is a risk posed by all who engage in high risk activities.

Given that, the question is ...

Why are gay men the only group to be told they may not donate?

That's not a rhetorical question.

[Robin]

To put a new question out there. What about if someone let's say a person was an organ donor. This person died, could said person say who he wanted his organ to be donated to, be it gay or straight. I guess it doesn't matter. And Shannon, I do agree that risky behavior in and of itself whether a person is a heroin user, or what ever or has multiple sexual partners, should not be allowed to donate blood. And I also think they may not be donating anyway. But if they do donate could they donate just the plasma?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "First, I find myself wondering who makes the policies regarding blood and organ donations? I confess I've not gone to the recent links people have posted. Was that question answered there? Are we talking policies set by politicians or scientists and/or medical professionals?"

As far as I know, like almost everything else about public policy, scientists and medical professionals advise, but civil servants and politicians actually set policy.

Shannon wrote: "I'd likely be okay with that ... IF ... the scientists weren't biased (something I'm still not convinced of in all cases) and if they actually shared the actual facts with us."

Of course. However, I would trust the bias of scientists a lot more than I would that of politicians who are (almost by definition) ideologues of one kind or another.

Good science also means transparency. This means that facts should be freely available. This is one of the basic tenets of the scientific community. The only problem with scientific "facts" is that they are often complicated and difficult to understand unless you are familiar with the field and can be presented to uninformed people in misleading ways. This is why scientific consensus is usually the most reliable indicator.

Shannon wrote: "For example, in my experience, doctors say the blood supply is safe. Safe, safe, safe. Only when questioned and questioned very specifically, do they start to hem and haw."

That's because usually the public want to know whether something is "safe" or "unsafe", but there is no such thing as safe. For anything. The food you eat, the air you breathe, the clothes you wear. Statistically speaking almost anything can kill you (and people have died from some pretty bizarre stuff), in fact rarely some people keel over and die for no obvious reason.

Generally therefore things are labelled as safe when the chance of harm is statistically several orders of magnitude below the statistical benefits.

Shannon wrote: "Riiiggghhtt.... Maybe, but, ultimately, it should have been my choice, and I should have been given all of the facts in order to make an informed decision. (I now have different doctors.)"

Is it an informed decision though? Studies show that humans tend to magnify previously unknown risks and ignore known ones. Take for example the "Dirty Bomb" threat, also referred to as the 'Weapon of Mass Disruption'. Military scientists know that the greatest danger of such a device are the people within the actual standard bomb blast radius, and then the thousands to tens of thousands likely to die in the panic that follows the first indication of radiation.

Shannon wrote: "You see, in my mind, it's a little game some scientists and doctors play. They know what's best for us. (A blood transfusion, for example.) They know the odds of it being tainted are smaller than the odds of someone getting even more sick or, frankly, dying if that person were to get in an accident of some kind. (Say it's safe. Put the person at ease.) And, again, please note ... I said some. Ends. Means. Justified."

I think that's a little unfair. I don't think it's a game, but if you know that by telling people that there is a tiny risk that a much larger portion of people will get scared and take the much much bigger risk of avoiding treatment, what would you do?

Maybe doctors should present all risks upfront, but to do so we'd either need a better educated population or be willing to lose a lot more of them?

Shannon wrote: "to withhold the truth or fudge things or ... in order to get an end result that might, ultimately, be in the person's best interests."

Again, that's seems very emotive and somewhat unfair. You are asking for absolutes when absolutes don't really exist. (I suppose that touches on religion right there). If you eat in a health inspected restaurant, do you accept the inspection as it being completely safe and free from all health hazards, pathogens, etc. or do you accept the label as being "safe" to a certain degree?

Anyone that tells you something is completely safe and then doesn't hum or haw when you question whether their is any risk at all is lying to you. After all there is a chance (according to Quantum Physics tunnelling effect) that all the particles in a HIV virus in a patient in a local hospital will suddenly find themselves in your body. It is an absurdly vanishingly small chance (i.e. if you waited for trillions of times longer than the universe has existed, it still almost certainly wouldn't happen to any member of the human species, let alone you) but the possibility is still finite according to the science.

Shannon wrote: "It is my personal belief that some scientists and doctors (among others) do think the ends justify the means."

That is almost certainly true, not because they're scientists or doctors, but because they are people, and there are many more people, politicians and preachers alike who think the same, yet their means is based on personal belief rather than objective reasoning.

Shannon wrote: "Given that, I'd actually want to see the evidence and know it's factual."

Define what is factual? For scientists it is usually the point were something exceeds 99.99(+ a few 9's)% certainty, but facts and truth are only going to arrive when we can understand everything. Some people will claim that is impossible, or claim that only 'god' can do it, but once again both claims are absolute and therefore are not "absolute facts" until they can explain everything else.

Shannon wrote: "I agree about risks. I do think the risks should be explained, though."

Personally I agree, though I think you will find that explaining risks properly are a lot harder than you may think.

For example vaccines, for a while there has been a (proven false) rumour that they cause autism. Yet even if they had the tiny chance of causing it that was stated the danger of the diseases they protected from was much greater. Unfortunately a lot of parents would accept the bigger risk of disease because this is a passive choice rather than risk the active choice of causing the autism.

Now that may be fair choice of the parent. What isn't fair choice is that a partially vaccinated population not only means that the disease is not eliminated, but that the disease can have hosts in which to mutate and eventually overcome the vaccine. Therefore the choice a parent made to vaccinate or not was not effecting just their own children, but eventually everyone's children.

So I agree about informing people (I do in general), but how do you present the information in a way that the average person understands the risks?

Shannon wrote: "I'm sorry about your friends."

So am I. Thank you.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Less than 100 cases? But that is without the blood from the part of the gay community we are discussing, so your figure is not relevant."

I already said it was hypothetical, but then you asked why I didn't state an arbitrarily higher number than the high one I chose. I rounded up to 1% for ease of example, but you asked why I didn't inflate that value to a fifth of all blood. I didn't do that because that would represent a rate of blood infection difference between straight and gay of many orders of magnitude which would have been absolutely ridiculous.

I am not sure why you are now dismissing my 1% number when you then posited a 19% yourself.

cHriS wrote: "Ex Prime Minister Gordon Browm lost the last general election because of the frivolous use of the word bigot. Similar to the way you are using it now. "

Good job I am not standing for office then, otherwise I would have to try to dress up bigotry in politically correct phraseology. It's not like you to suddenly get all politically correct though is it? Though since you have already stated here your support of other peoples bigotry and the right for people to hate other people based on prejudice alone, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Why would a gay man who has had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, and knowing that he could be at risk of infection which is associated with his sexual behaviour, want to give blood? I can think of no reason other than to be malicious."

Well I can. Why does anyone give blood? Wanting to help their fellow people and save lives? What if that man had been in a committed monogamous relationship with a man for several years previous? What if they always used protection? Either or both precautions would bring their chance of infection down from tiny to tinier.

To assume that gay men want to give blood because they are malicious and, by inference, disease ridden compared to straight people, is a horrific thing to say.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "You can dress the word bigotry up how you like, but you are still 'pot stirring'
If a decision is made by the NHS it is for the benefit of all not just for those gay men who have been excluded. Gay men may also one day require a blood transfusion. "

Actually if you read the link you gave the decision is based on the fact that their studies show that they could lose more straight doners by asking them personal questions about their risk compared to simply banning a certain minority. So that is a choice, and a choice that is heavily influenced about how easy it remains in our society to exclude and belittle a minority compared to asking the majority personal questions.

This also means that the blood supply is less safe than it would be if they asked straight people about their sexual activity.

That is bias treatment based on sexuality.

That is bigotry.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Riiiggghhtt.... Maybe, but, ultimately, it should have been my choice, and I should have been given all of the facts in order to make an informed decision. (I now have different doctors.)"

Is it an informed decision though? Studies show that humans tend to magnify previously unknown risks and ignore known ones. Take for example the "Dirty Bomb" threat, also referred to as the 'Weapon of Mass Disruption'. Military scientists know that the greatest danger of such a device are the people within the actual standard bomb blast radius, and then the thousands to tens of thousands likely to die in the panic that follows the first indication of radiation. "

Hmmm.... I think so, but .... Here's the deal.

Either we believe ... it's my body; it's my choice ... or we don't. Right?

If something is going to be done to my body, I darn well should be given the facts. It's, ultimately, my body and should be my choice.

And, .... I now have doctors who practice medicine in this way. I've actually had one say, "You need to know the benefits and risks. Yes, I think this is what we should do, but you need to know everything. You need to be fully onboard or not."

Further, people here have called believers sheep ... for not thinking for themselves. I've got to tell you ... the idea of medical professionals willfully not sharing all of the facts with their patients (because said professionals want their patients to accept treatment) .... Well, that sort of smacks of shepherd/sheep to me. Not exactly something I'd advocate.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "You see, in my mind, it's a little game some scientists and doctors play. They know what's best for us. (A blood transfusion, for example.) They know the odds of it being tainted are smaller than the odds of someone getting even more sick or, frankly, dying if that person were to get in an accident of some kind. (Say it's safe. Put the person at ease.) And, again, please note ... I said some. Ends. Means. Justified."

I think that's a little unfair. I don't think it's a game, but if you know that by telling people that there is a tiny risk that a much larger portion of people will get scared and take the much much bigger risk of avoiding treatment, what would you do?

Maybe doctors should present all risks upfront, but to do so we'd either need a better educated population or be willing to lose a lot more of them?"

I actually don't think it's unfair. But, that's okay.

I've had doctors who ... I've known doctors on a personal level who ... say they believe in the science of medicine and the art of medicine. If you'd rather I refer to it in these terms I will. Take the game aspect out of it.

I had doctors who, years ago, didn't share certain information with me due to the fact that I might worry and be stressed. Despite my pointed questions, they did not give me the information I requested. In one case, I discovered the information on my own. A little thing called the Mayo Clinic website. In another incident, the doctor told me later.

When I called them on it, they both said, "There's the science of medicine and the art of medicine. I believe in practicing both." They defined the art of medicine as ... knowing what's best for their patients, not just medically but psychologically, therefore ....

About 6 or 7 years ago, my grandmother was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Interestingly, while the doctor told my grandmother and my mother the name of the illness, he didn't tell them it was terminal. No one knew what caused it. There were several possible causes. No one knew how to treat it. There was no cure. People died two weeks to two years after diagnosis. Can't remember the name. It's when your lungs fill with scar tissue.

I got an email from my mother one day saying, "Your grandmother has ____. But, the doctor said not to worry. He said it would be fine and to come back in two months."

Yes, my mother was at the appointment.

So, being who I am, I went to the Mayo Clinic website, plugged in the name and ...!

That doctor said he was practicing the art of medicine. He wanted to ease my grandmother into that knowledge. (Might have been a shock, though, if she died within that two month period. Ooops.)

I'm not cool with doctors who pretend to be all about science and the facts and come out with bull**** about practicing the art of medicine. Hypocrisy. And, .... It's my body. You'd better be honest with me and give me all of the facts.

Would we need a more intelligent public? Well, here's the deal. The public isn't going to become more intelligent if the truth isn't shared with them. That's a known fact. Might doctors need to take extra time to talk people through things? Yup. If healthcare systems don't allow for that and only allow for assembly-line medicine, I suggest someone suck it up and figure it out. Because, .... If it's a person's body and that person's choice, I suggest we start sharing all of the facts with all of the patients and not treat people like sheep.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Either we believe ... it's my body; it's my choice ... or we don't. Right?"

Yup, agreed.

Shannon wrote: "If something is going to be done to my body, I darn well should be given the facts. It's, ultimately, my body and should be my choice."

Agreed. The problem gets stickier when your choice impacts that of others, whether your children or strangers.

Shannon wrote: "I now have doctors who practice medicine in this way. I've actually had one say, "You need to know the benefits and risks. Yes, I think this is what we should do, but you need to know everything. You need to be fully onboard or not.""

Good.

Shannon wrote: "Further, people here have called believers sheep ... for not thinking for themselves. I've got to tell you ... the idea of medical professionals willfully not sharing all of the facts with their patients (because said professionals want their patients to accept treatment) .... Well, that sort of smacks of shepherd/sheep to me. Not exactly something I'd advocate."

Agreed again. However the marked difference here that often that 'authoritarianism' is based on independently verified evidence rather than a set of dogma. After all if someone (like yourself) asks for the reason/evidence then they should be told, rather than "it just is" or "the book says so and we believe that book".

My only caution would be that sometimes telling people is not informing people.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote:Imagine, God forbid, that your wife or your child for some horrible reason required a blood transfusion. Would you want your wife or child to receive blood donated by some 30 year old guy who has had sex with around 90 women........"

Come on Shannon, I understand what you are suggesting but isn't this way off course?

Homosexuals and heterosexuals partake in anal sex. Hey, I'll say it. Hello.... Not everyone. Heck, I don't even know what the percentages might be

Hang on while I catch my breath and cool down......
You don't even know what the percentages might be and neither do I, but I would be on a safe bet to assume that because the homosexuals have less ports of call, they would have a much higher percentage. And that is the issue.

I would suggest a poll here asking the heterosexuals if they enjoy 'partaking' might give a clue. But I feel that they might answer yes just to doctor the results.

It leads me to wonder if it has something to do with bigotry

If that is how you think then I would have to suggest than maybe you are not able to see the other persons view, and if people do not think along the lines you are thinking it must be a form of bigotry.

Is the subject we are discussing here, gay rights or safe blood transfusions? I would always put safe blood transfusions first, Which would you put first?

Because Gary and C-Cose have not convinced me that there would be no additional risk in just letting certain gay men give blood without waiting 12 months, I must be a bigot. Maybe they are looking at gay rights being more important than safer blood transfusions and because I'm not, their only other line of defence is the use of the word bigot.

Using that word without real cause is a form of bullying. And that is what Gary and C-Cose are doing each time they print that word. Maybe one or both are Gay and they are only fighting their corner, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Since that NHS in the Uk set the rules for, or are advised by a government body, about who can give blood and who can't, I am happy to go along with whatever their reasons are for making those rules.

If I had to side with Gary & C-Cose or the British Nation Health Service, the Nation Health Service would win every time.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Actually if you read the link you gave the decision is based on the fact that their studies show that they could lose more straight doners by asking them personal questions about their risk compared to simply banning a certain minority. So that is a choice, and a choice that is heavily influenced about how easy it remains in our society to exclude and belittle a minority compared to asking the majority personal questions.

This also means that the blood supply is less safe than it would be if they asked straight people about their sexual activity.

That is bias treatment based on sexuality.

That is bigotry.

"

That is trying to get the best blood possible, while eliminating as much risk as possible without the supplies drying up completely.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: To assume that gay men want to give blood because they are malicious and, by inference, disease ridden compared to straight people, is a horrific thing to say. .."

What is horrific, is how an intelligent man, judging by what he has previously written, even though I don't agree with most of it, can either misread a post or twist what was said just for effect.

[cHriS]

C-Cose wrote: You're absolutely correct cHris ... it's an argument for why nobody that engages in risky behaviours associated with gay men should be able to give blood."

You are not getting my point. If there is a risk in using some gay mens blood, then saying that there are others who are not gay but may also cause a risk; that is not a reason to use the blood from those gay men in question.

The question would be why, eliminate that section of gay men and not the 'others'?

It seems that you and Gary put the answer down to bigotry, while I do not agree that is what it is.

If you are stopped for speeding and your defence is that the cars in front of you were also speeding and they did not get pulled over, that does not make you any less guilty.

[TheBookDude]

well being in my mid thirties if I lived in a world without science I'd probably be dead by now so by default I'm afrain religion looses out in this one

[Gryph]

cHriS wrote: "Because Gary and C-Cose have not convinced me that there would be no additional risk in just letting certain gay men give blood without waiting 12 months, I must be a bigot. Maybe they are looking at gay rights being more important than safer blood transfusions and because I'm not, their only other line of defence is the use of the word bigot."

Greetings cHriS,

I've never called you a bigot; I'm not responsible for your self-assigning of that word. The policy as below for CBS:

"Men who have had sex with another man and who are currently excluded from giving blood for transfusion can [only] become potential stem cell donors. Men who have had sex with another man and who are currently excluded from giving blood for transfusion can become potential stem cell donors. If a male has had sex with another male within five years of a possible donation of stem cells, organs and/or tissues,..."

The questionnaire given to all new donors specifically states that any man that has had any kind of sexual contact with another man since 1977 is ineligible for blood donation. Not 5 yrs ... not 1 yr ... not 6 mos. Currently, that would be 35 yrs.

There are no questions of risky sexual behaviour presented to heterosexual men or women on that same form. None.

The risk of infection is equal for those that engage in risky sex, IV drug use, and unprotected sex. Period. Full stop.

Later, your write, "Maybe one or both are Gay and they are only fighting their corner, so I give them the benefit of the doubt."

Oh thank you ever so much. I'm not fighting from any corner. If you've actually read the exchanges between Gary and I, you may have noticed that this is the one thing that Gary and I can agree on. My "corner" (which by the way is more of a circle as I don't feel backed into anything) is that of fair treatment for all that comes from minimized bias: be that treatment of GLBT(Q) people, those with mental / psychological difficulties, the poor, women, neglected children, the elderly, or the person that can't get a simple coffee at Starbucks w/o listening to a sing-song litany while it's being prepared ... well maybe not the last one ... lol.

Please don't ever presume to know my intentions, the causes I fight for / against, or my thoughts. I can categorically state that you are woefully uneducated on those fronts. You may know much else; you don't know me.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "About 6 or 7 years ago, my grandmother was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Interestingly, while the doctor told my grandmother and my mother the name of the illness, he didn't tell them it was terminal. No one knew what caused it. There were several possible causes. No one knew how to treat it. There was no cure. People died two weeks to two years after diagnosis. Can't remember the name. It's when your lungs fill with scar tissue...."

Greetings Shannon :)

Sadly, I had a similar occurrence with a family member ... although the doctor involved was very different in his approach.

Some three years ago, I went on an emergency visit to my parents--some 1400 kms away--to support my Mom and Dad due to a diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer for my Dad. He had had the surgery by the time I arrived, but I was there to provide emotional support to the both of them and ensure that necessary info was breaking through Dad's thick Germanic skull ... lol.

Shortly after my arrival, during a regular visit with Dad's doc, my Mom revealed to the doc a mass that she had been carrying in her breast for over a decade. Less than a week later, she was in surgery for removal of that cancerous tumor. The doctor didn't fluff up the diagnosis or risks of surgery--and post-op risks--for anyone. Her chances on the table were 50 / 50 at best due to a number of other factors. Dad, understandably, went into Lt. Cmd. Data / Cylon mode; he didn't want to hear the risks. I had to go into "get 'er done ... she's had enough pain" mode.

When Mom was finally semi-conscious, I was the one that had to convince her to spend the night in hospital. The only way to convince her was to tell her that I just wasn't equipped (emotionally, physically, or knowledge wise) to handle any emergency that might arise over the next 24 hours. She finally relented. The upside is that 3 yrs later they are both fit and doing quite well. Dad is as clean as a whistle and has forgotten much of that episode (he's beginning to show Alzheimer's) ... Mom makes jokes about her teeny boob and quietly thanks me for standing up to her on that night.

My point? .... oh yeah .... there are doctors that aren't afraid to put all the cards on the table. If it weren't for the surgeon that night, things might have gone sideways. If it weren't for Dad's doc insisting on surgery 3 yrs ago, they'd both be dead. If it weren't for me (being as informed as I could) to tell them to "Shut up and take their medicine ...", one or both might not be here.

I demanded full disclosure and the results speak for themselves.

[Gryph]

cHriS wrote: "If you are stopped for speeding and your defence is that the cars in front of you were also speeding and they did not get pulled over, that does not make you any less guilty."

cHriS,

The difficulty I have with this analogy is that all people that are caught speeding suffer the same penalty.

If ... caught speeding = disclosure of risky sexual activity
Then ... all "caught speeding" would be disallowed from blood donation

But ... not all (in Canada) are forced to disclose that information.

Caveat: I can logical proof and math set almost anything. Be careful of the comparison that you propose :)

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Is the subject we are discussing here, gay rights or safe blood transfusions? I would always put safe blood transfusions first, Which would you put first?"

Safe blood transfusions.

Which would mean, any and all people who have partaken in certain acts that pose risks, would not be allowed to donate blood or wouldn't be allowed to do so within a certain time period.


Given the fact that you don't agree with that, I'd ask .... What is more important to you?

Safe blood transfusions or taking a stand against the idea that applying the same standard to all, in order to protect the populous, is bowing to the pressure to be politically correct?

Safe blood transfusions or the refusal to appear politically correct?

I'm going for safe blood transfusions.