Blood Ban Debate

[Sugarcoma101]

'That This House Would Give Pink Blood' .

The UCC LGB and the Philosophical Society present the most topical and controversial debate in UCC for years as we pitch members of the Cork Gay Project and UCC's gay , lesbian and bisexual community against the Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) over the latter's refusal to take blood for donation from gay men .

It starts at 7.30 in G19 - come early to avoid disappointment !

Sugarcoma101 the PRO UCC LGB

[Sugarcoma101]

Thats next Monday the 17th of November in G19

[redbulljunkie]

ooh, wish I could make it, it sounds excellent.

It'll probably involve the gay guys battling againgst 2 tape recorders 1 with "we follow international guidelines" on repeat, and another with "the statistics show ..." on repeat.

Make sure you mention the lengths of the bans, and how protection is considered irrelevant (12 months for things such as drug use and prostitution vs lifetime for one act of protected sex or oral sex with a male).

[sent]

Not forgetting that cases of HIV are rising in the straight population and that if the gay blood ban was dropped the increased risk of HIV transmission is marginal.

[redbulljunkie]

I was shown in a previous thread that those particular statistics are unreliable.

Obviously they're not going to advocate, allowing gay people to give blood without question. The way to push it I'd say, is to ignore sexuality involved and instead concentrate purely on protection. I can't see them justifying the current rules which seem to rule it out completely - "it doesn't matter if you have unprotected sex, so long as you're not gay".

[Bootyzilla]

RBJ is right. I thought all blood was supposed to be screened anyway? Surely HIV and other such nasties are things that would automatically be screened for?

[damien]

quoteOriginally posted by sent
Not forgetting that cases of HIV are rising in the straight population and that if the gay blood ban was dropped the increased risk of HIV transmission is marginal.


Where are you getting these statistics ?

[damien]

quoteOriginally posted by Bootyzilla
I thought all blood was supposed to be screened anyway? Surely HIV and other such nasties are things that would automatically be screened for?


Onsite HIV screening costs money. Why not cut down on getting it from the higher risk categories instead by just blanket banning them all. Welcome to a land of nonsense, welcome to BTS Land ! It probably makes them look concerned for peoples welfare by doing that instead of testing everyone that gives blood. So they look concerned without being as safe as possible by banning men who have sex with men.

There is a real risk though of the staff of the BTS accidently getting infected if patients believe they are HIV free when they are not. This is fine, but they should actually ban more high risk categories along with men who have sex with men. I'm all for them being as safe as possible once its unilateral.

[damien]

By the way, steering this back on topic I hope to try and make it. This is G19 in the Kane Building right ?

[redbulljunkie]

Yeah think so.

I think one of the problems with hiv screening is the time needed for hiv to incubate as well. you can't conclusively rule out hiv infection using anti-body detection for at least 6 months after initial infection.

[amnesiac]

Amnesiac will be on campus in his white jacket protesting Monday morning.
Amnesiac is also coming out to his Mum this weekend.
So wish me well folks.

[bo_selecta]

Best of luck Amnesiac....hope it goes well for ya!

[redbulljunkie]

best of luck

[amnesiac]

I hope to get reprimanded for "bringing the Medical School into disrepute." It's an offence punishable with expulsion.

[sent]

Damien here are some quotes from when the FDA in the US decided to review the gay blood ban situation. The gay ban has been in place since 1985

"Changing the policy would have resulted in about 62,300 men - both gays and those who had experimented with homosexual activity only once - seeking to donate blood, estimated FDA medical officer Dr. Andrew Dayton. That might result in 1.7 HIV-infected units of blood slipping into the blood supply, he said."

"All donated blood undergoes strict testing for the AIDS virus and other blood-borne diseases - that would not have changed. But testing isn't perfect. Of the nation's 12 million units of donated blood, about 10 HIV-infected units slip through each year, causing about two to three HIV infections a year, said Dr. Michael Busch of the University of California-San Francisco. "

[damien]

Wheres the stats about HIV in the straight population going up ? Can you provide the % of gay people infected compared to heterosexual americans ? A link would be good.

The figures fired around the place never give the whole picture, yes the % of heterosexuals getting hiv are increasing but the homosexuasl are still way ahead unless you take into account a lot of the hot spots in third world countries where half the population has hiv now.

[damien]

Heres a whole previous thread for the newcomers [)]

http//www.gaycork.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1010

[solice]

hope everything went ok amnesiac, ill be at the debate tonight, who else is going

[LeBaron]

Yea Amnesiac, did it go OK ?

[Proud Mary 1980]

Was great to see so many at the debate

[solice]

it was great to see the anti ban side win, but were we really ever going to lose!!!

[redbulljunkie]

Well we definitely had the stronger argument, but I didn't think we were going to win,the whole when arguing with an idiot, the idiot never knows when he loses kind of thing. Was there a neutral person there to decide who won or something.

[damien]

The Blood Transfusion Board argued their side very very well and the points they raised countered the LGB Socs claims.

I found it unfair that some people raised past fuckups by the Board when it had no relevance to the debate in question.

THE BTSB argued that they are eliminating all high risk people and men who have sex with men are very high risk compared to heterosexuals. They have banned people from Subsaharan countries (whihc I did not know before last night) which is a good move.

I don't mind people being stopped from giving blood if its justifiable. A lifelong ban though for a man that had sex (protected or not) with another man just once is crazy.

Bring in something like Australia does with a 12 month ban, same as someone that gets piercings or tattoos or has a kid. Do it in conjunction with HIV tests.

THE BTSB kept quoting statistics but I'd like to see how the risk they talk about diminishes over time. I'm sure theres a low risk for a man who has had sex with a man after 12 months of no further sexual activity and after a hiv test in month 6. Something like this was never argued which was a shame. When I have a chance I'd like to look into this risk more.

The BTSB could easily be beaten with their own statistics. I thought the comparison between the Organ Donor group not having any problems with gay men and the BTSB that do was going to lead somewhere but it didn't. Pity.

All in all the LGB Soc argued their point very well but I thought the BTSB won overall no matter what the audience vote.

I had some objections to the attitude of some of the commmentators who were almost saying "you people are always playing the discrimination card", it was surprising because you would have thought someone with a medical education would have been more openminded and less bigoted.

[LeBaron]

Ah Damien, bigotory unfortunatly knows no boundries

[redbulljunkie]

What happens if she's out with her gay friends and one cuts a finger. Does she run screaming "eek! gay blood gay blood" whilst simultaneously trying to reassure them that "it's not anything against YOU"

[damien]

That would be pretty much her attitude I would think. Sad but true.

[solice]

quoteOriginally posted by damien
I found it unfair that some people raised past fuckups by the Board when it had no relevance to the debate in question.


twice there were references made to the hep c scandal which destroyed lives and families, they were made in reference "high risk groups should not be allowed to give blood because this should not happen again"
yes it should not happen again, but that is no reason to stop gay men from giving blood. it was a fuck up on the part of the BTSB and had nothing to do with the gay population. it was right to clarify that point

[RubberBoy]

Would have liked to have been at the debate to hear what the BTSB have to say.

But i have to say I think the line taken by some people arguing against the ban is very niave. I don't think the issue should be debated on the grounds of discrimation at all. It belongs in the areas of medicial knowledge and statitics, if the ban provides more prtection to the blood suply from HIV, Hep C or future infections then it should remain in place, if the ban does not serve that porpose then it should be removed.

The BTSB should have one remit and that is to provibe a safe blood supply for us when we need it in hospitials, ideas around what is or isn't discrimation to me are irrelevent. I want a safe blood supply.

The final descision needs to be taken basied on a real risk assesment of all the medical factors at play, and then a line drawn under the whole debacle that has sofar done neither the gay communities or the BTSB any good