It would be, if a test could indeed make you 100% sure. Since the tests for HIV infection have a false positive and false negative rate of about 16%, though, in the real world it would not be.
... you really shouldn't try to make people paranoid about blood donation, ya know? The tests aren't that inaccurate. Your standard HIV test is over 99% accurate.
Wait, EE, there are rules against you donating blood because you're homosexual?
It's an unfortunate consequence of the small portion of the homosexual community that had unsafe sexual practices back during the 80's, when AIDS was a booming issue in the U.S. Regrettably, biased media outlets at the time focused heavily on homosexuals as "being responsible" for the epidemic spread of the illness (though poverty and lack of real sexual education was likely a lot more at fault), so much so that the disease was often referred to as "GAIDS". It's shameful that the law hasn't been repealed.
Maybe someone should write a letter to the president (or maybe the ACLU). I know a lot of people say that never helps, but my aunt got help from George Bush after writing him a letter about her medicare problem.
As for the topic, I can't say I'd have a problem with you doing that; but I wouldn't advise it. The last thing you need is to end up getting into serious legal trouble for trying to do something charitable.
However... could there be legal repercussions for you? Giving blood is a noble thing, but it'd be stupid if you were fined or jailed and the blood thrown out because you lied (I actually have no idea what, if anything would actually happen if they somehow found out you were homosexual).
Morally speaking, yes, it would be completely right of you to lie about your sexual history in order to donate blood.
However... could there be legal repercussions for you? Giving blood is a noble thing, but it'd be stupid if you were fined or jailed and the blood thrown out because you lied (I actually have no idea what, if anything would actually happen if they somehow found out you were homosexual).
He could, I believe, be prosecuted for "defrauding" a charitible organization. Depending on the prosecuter or D.A., he might also get slapped with other offenses (this is particularly likely if the prosecutor is biased against homosexuals or wants to pile up offenses as leverage for a plea agreement). I can't say I have any clue what the other so-called "offenses" would be called, but I can imagine there's probably something in the public health codes that is written stupidly enough (or with enough prejudice) to be applied by an overzealous prosecutor.
Honestly though EE, this kind of thing seems right up the ACLU's alley. If you're seriously considering misrepresenting the truth so you can donate blood I would recommend that you contact the ACLU, if for no other reason than to find out how much trouble you could get into and whether or not they would take the case if you did get into trouble.
However, it remains America and you might want to take it up with someone who actually knows about this stuff...
From what I've heard the standard precaution against bad blood is to destroy the entire batch; and I don't think you'd want them to destroy all the blood from your entire town's blood drive because of homophobia
*shrug*
Do as you wish, of course....
If I get an STD test first so I'm 100% sure that I don't have HIV/AIDS, is it ethically permissable to lie to United Blood Services about my sexual history next time they have a blood drive so that I can donate?
First off, I think this is an excellent topic, and I hope they don't close it down.
I am going to say no, because the test could be in error. I have heard of both false positives and negatives with HIV tests. Also, you only mention aids, but they are also looking for types of hepatitis when they screen blood donations. And while they screen the blood, the reason you are supposed to answer honestly, is because those tests can fail (as can the one you took on your own) and they need to look at other risks factors to decide the potential risk posed by your blood.
It would be, if a test could indeed make you 100% sure. Since the tests for HIV infection have a false positive and false negative rate of about 16%, though, in the real world it would not be.
... you really shouldn't try to make people paranoid about blood donation, ya know? The tests aren't that inaccurate. Your standard HIV test is over 99% accurate.
That is still room for error, especially when you consider the large number of people donating blood (any gamer who plays percentile systems no how often that 1% chance can actually come up). On top of that there are other factors that produce an innacurate result, such as being recently exposed. A good way to look at this is what happens in the adult film industry. They have routine HIV tests once a month to check stars if they are infected, but there have still been dozens of cases in the past 10 years.
I do hear where you are coming from escher, but my understanding is the rate of HIV in gay men is much higher than in straight men or gay women (as of 2007 the last number I heard was 1 in 5 gay men living in major cities in the US are believed to be infected---though this was just an estimate). I don't know if CoC allows details, but man to man sex is simply more likely to transmit the infection. I think when you are dealing with health and the blood supply, you need to take harder and less politically correct measures.
From what I've heard the standard precaution against bad blood is to destroy the entire batch; and I don't think you'd want them to destroy all the blood from your entire town's blood drive because of homophobia
But I am not so sure it is simply homophobia. I haven't given blood in a while, so I don't know what they look for exactly, but the idea is they want to eliminate as much contaminated blood as possible before testing, which does reduce the total amount of tainted blood. This is why things like a recent tattoo also disqualify you. There just isn't anyway around the numbers, a gay man has a significantly greater liklihood of contracting HIV than a straight man (assuming all other risk factors are the same). This is basically a public health issue.
Just made a check to see how it is here in the Netherlands, but "sexual preference" isn't even on the list of questions, which leads me to believe that either there's a lot of sick people on the other side of the ocean or it's homophobia, but I won't know until I've seen the numbers
Do you have the numbers? I'm curious if it's really that bad...
Just made a check to see how it is here in the Netherlands, but "sexual preference" isn't even on the list of questions, which leads me to believe that either there's a lot of sick people on the other side of the ocean or it's homophobia, but I won't know until I've seen the numbers
The 1 in 5 number was just one estimate for major cities back in 05 or 07 (can't remember for sure and that isn't a number I would bank on personally). But here is a CDC report on the subject that is pretty recent. As far as I know the concensus among researchers is that male to male sex is higher risk for HIV transmission:
www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFa...
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/researc...
Here is also the CDC website on HIV:
cdc.gov/hiv/
Do you have the numbers? I'm curious if it's really that bad...
Just made a check to see how it is here in the Netherlands, but "sexual preference" isn't even on the list of questions, which leads me to believe that either there's a lot of sick people on the other side of the ocean or it's homophobia, but I won't know until I've seen the numbers
It's neither.
It's being realistic and trying to protect people.
Why don't you stop the America bashing? You do it every chance you get.
Last I heard there is actually a greater risk of false positives for many HIV/AIDS tests than false negatives.
This is a really interesting question. One thing that I think is relevant is what position do you put the Red Cross in as a result?
I am leaning towards the opinion that even if you consider some of the questions unethical because they are based on prejudice, it is probably better to be honest and seek other avenues for changing the policies.
Since they test the blood they collect, your blood will be tested twice and ironically will probably be the safest blood in the batch. (Although you may have GRID!)
Another factor: I guarantee you will not be the only person doing this. "Everyody else is doing it" doesn't make something ethical that isn't, but it's worth considering that there is already a lot of blood in the system tainted by the gay, so you will be saving somebody's life without appreciably increasing their risk or the risk to the system at all.
I believe male-to-male intercourse is considered more dangerous because there is a much greater risk of tearing. That said, safe sex practices are a must and it really shouldn't matter at all if you only have one partner (and your partner only has one partner) and you're both clean.
My understanding it is it is mulitiple reasons. The first is, the epidemic hit the gay community very hard in the beginning, so there is a bigger pool there to begin with (but it has also hit other communities hard as well, depending on how you want to break things down). The second is the many blood vessells that line the wall of the **** and rectum, which can be injured very easily absorb the virus very easily. I believe, even without injury though, the virus can pass through the tissue here as well. The third reason is that condoms have a hire failure rate with male to male sex than male to female.
The partner thing is a good point. But, as in any relationship, you can never be 100% certain about your partner's activities.
If you ask me the policy isn't based on homophobia, it is based on the numbers.
Last I heard there is actually a greater risk of false positives for many HIV/AIDS tests than false negatives.
This is true, but there is still a chance of a false negative. The most commonly accepted number is that standard HIV tests are over 99% accurate. That is a very impressive number. Approx. 3 out of every 1000 tests come back with a false negative result. Which is great. But when you consider the number of people giving blood, you still need to do what else you can to limit potentially tainted donors. Because even with over 99% accurate testing, it does mean eventually infected blood can get into the blood supply.
This has been a rather doom and gloom topic. But just to put it into perspective, blood transfusions in the US are very safe. The chances of acquiring hepatitis from a blood transfusion are about 1 in 250,000, while the chances of acquiring HIV are 1 in 2,000,000. You are in fact much more likely to suffer other more common adverse reaction to transfusions, such as acute lung injury, than you are to be infected with a disease.
The second is the many blood vessells that line the wall of the **** and rectum, which can be injured very easily absorb the virus very easily. I believe, even without injury though, the virus can pass through the tissue here as well. The third reason is that condoms have a hire failure rate with male to male sex than male to female.
During an act of sex involving a penis there is always microscopic tearing of the tissue. Dip your tallywhacker in lemon juice immediately after sex if you don't believe me. This tearing also occurs in the vagina, and it occurs especially in the ****. The virus can pass through any mucous membrane (yes, even your mouth), but blood-to-blood contact is the most likely method of transmission, and you get more of that with anal sex than you do with vaginal sex.
Vaginal sex is still dangerous, though. If you're having sex with somebody who is infected with HIV it's the difference between playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with four bullets in it and a revolver with five.
(Also: straight people can have anal sex with each other too!)
If you ask me the policy isn't based on homophobia, it is based on the numbers.
I agree, but this is why the question is so interesting. In this situation, the person in question knows that he is on the safe side of the numbers, and therefore the statistics relating to the rest of the gay community are irrelevent. We're talking about a single individual in single specific situation, who is more likely to have a better idea of whether or not his blood is dangerous than most straight people whose blood will be accepted.
In another context:
Jaywalking is illegal. Jaywalking is dangerous. Statistically, a person is safer if they cross the street at a crosswalk than if they cross the street in the middle of the block.
If you can plainly see that there are no cars in either direction, is it unethical to jaywalk?
During an act of sex involving a penis there is always microscopic tearing of the tissue. Dip your tallywhacker in lemon juice immediately after sex if you don't believe me. This tearing also occurs in the vagina, and it occurs especially in the ****. The virus can pass through any mucous membrane (yes, even your mouth), but blood-to-blood contact is the most likely method of transmission, and you get more of that with anal sex than you do with vaginal sex.
Vaginal sex is still dangerous, though. If you're having sex with somebody who is infected with HIV it's the difference between playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with four bullets in it and a revolver with five.
I don't think this number is right. The risk is something like 1.3 times greater for one of the partners and 2 times as great for the other (because of the CoC I don't want to go into detail here, but I think the reason for the numbers should be clear).
(Also: straight people can have anal sex with each other too!)
Yes they do. And this should, if it isn't already, be one of the questions on the donation form.
I agree, but this is why the question is so interesting. In this situation, the person in question knows that he is on the safe side of the numbers, and therefore the statistics relating to the rest of the gay community are irrelevent. We're talking about a single individual in single specific situation, who is more likely to have a better idea of whether or not his blood is dangerous than most straight people whose blood will be accepted.
In another context:
Jaywalking is illegal. Jaywalking is dangerous. Statistically, a person is safer if they cross the street at a crosswalk than if they cross the street in the middle of the block.
If you can plainly see that there are no cars in either direction, is it unethical to jaywalk?
I don't think most people regard J Walking as unethical. Reckless, perhaps, but not unethical. In this case, you have someone lying about one of their risk factors on a blood donation questionaire, because they believe they are clean. I question the ability of the person to know clean he or she actually is. Many people get tested for HIV, not realizing there is window after their last encounter. And other continue to have sex after they've been tested. I agree the chances are small. However, a straight person who has risk factors that eliminate him or her could do the same thing. So could a heroin user. As could someone who got a tattoo in the past year. I don't think that makes it right to do so.
This is also a pretty outdated question. While statistics don't lie, a better question would be "have you had unprotected sex" or "have you had anal sex" as those are the greater risk factors. Woman have anal sex too, and any unprotected sex can net you an STD. While they are singling out groups of people, why don't they ban black people from giving blood. It's been a little while since I looked at the statistics, but I do remember them having a higher chance of contracting an STD than any other ethnic group. But they're black, you can't discriminate against them. Only white men (because we should bear the guilt for what others of our color have done) and gays (because it's somehow still ok to be prejudice against them).
EDIT: This is also the one factor that prevents you from ever donating blood. If you have a tattoo, you can't give blood for a certain amount of time. If you've been to certain foreign countries, you can't give blood for a certain amount of time (even if you hooked up with a hooker in some third world African country where 1 in 3 people have AIDS). If you have sex with a man you can't give blood EVER. That's pretty ridiculous.
End rant.
If you can plainly see that there are no cars in either direction, is it unethical to jaywalk?
No, but it is illegal.
EDIT: This is also the one factor that prevents you from ever donating blood. If you have a tattoo, you can't give blood for a certain amount of time. If you've been to certain foreign countries, you can't give blood for a certain amount of time (even if you hooked up with a hooker in some third world African country where 1 in 3 people have AIDS). If you have sex with a man you can't give blood EVER. That's pretty ridiculous.
See I think you are right, but I think that is more of an argument for increasing the length of time on the other examples. Right now our blood supply is one of the safest in the world. We shouldn't do anything that could move it, even by a very small margin, in the other direction. Also, it is part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the overall risk of any surgery. Remember, the only risk doesn't come from blood. If the equipment isn't properly steralized (which has happened a number of times in the past few years) you can contract a blood disease. If the doctor is sick, and accidentally cuts himself, you can contract a blood disease (I know someone who got hepatitis like this, and now he is very sick).
I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality by the way. Despite coming from a very strict religious background, I support things like gay marriage, and believe there is too much homophobia in our society. However, I don't believe that the blood supply is a place for worrying about tolerance. The most important thing should be keeping the blood supply clean.
EDIT: And what does surgery have to do with it? Yes there are other risk factors, but whether or not a gay man donates blood has absolutely nothing at all to do with unsterilized equipment or a doctor cutting himself during surgery.
The blood is tested anyway. It's not like they just take you at your word that it's good. And again, if the argument is that there is a legitimate spike in STDs among gay men, then they need to be targeting other demographics as well. And one of the big questions on there should be "have you had unprotected sex" because that is the real risk factor, whether you are gay, straight, bi, whatever. A gay man that uses condoms has less risk than a straight man who doesn't.
I agree it should ask if you have had unprotected sex, but it should also ask if you have had anal sex, because it is riskier and condoms have a higher rate of failure with it. So it isn't accurate to say protected anal sex is the same as protected vaginal sex. The risks are much higher for the former.
EDIT: And what does surgery have to do with it? Yes there are other risk factors, but whether or not a gay man donates blood has absolutely nothing at all to do with unsterilized equipment or a doctor cutting himself during surgery.
My point was, anytime you go into the emergency room, in for a procedure, or in for surgery (times when you would likely have a transfusion) there are a number of other things, aside from a transfusion alone, that pose a risk of infection from a blood disease. So the job of the medical community is to limit as much as possible, the risk from everyone of those avenues of infection. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with the question of gay men and blood transfusions, I am just trying to put blood supply into context.
However... could there be legal repercussions for you?
Possibly, but that's not the question, no?
I am going to say no, because the test could be in error. I have heard of both false positives and negatives with HIV tests. Also, you only mention aids, but they are also looking for types of hepatitis when they screen blood donations.
The full STD test I'm going to get checks for all that stuff. And then United Blood Services will also. That's two false negatives on a very accurate test. With a person that's otherwise just about as low-risk as you can get without being a virgin. Frankly, the chances are higher that they'll get a false negative with the blood of your average high school student1 then with mine.
EE... you know as well as I do that lieing is a bad thing.
*shrug*
Do as you wish, of course....
Yep. And that's why I've not been donating for something like five years now. But I'm getting tired of feeling like a scab every time they do a campus blood drive.
EDIT: This is also the one factor that prevents you from ever donating blood.
That's pretty much why I'm even considering it.
As a side note, I'm still kinda hoping that when the FDA gets together this June they'll get around to revising their policies and this question will become moot.
Also, I'd like to point out that while anal sex has the highest risk of transmitting HIV provided that one of the partners is infected, straight-identifying men and women are much liklier to engage in unprotected sex period then gay men, and that based on recent studies and surveys there are more women engaging in unprotected anal sex in New York City then gay men doing it with or without a wrapper.
I only bring this up to point out that while a question about sexual behavior might make sense and be appropriate, it should be based on current science and understanding, and not on a knee-jerk reaction from the 80s to an epidemic that was then known as GRID. In the 80's screening was ineffective, the virus was poorly understood, and Westboro Baptists were protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims. Today the virus is much more understood, infection rates have dropped across the board, screening is effective, and the Westboro Baptists have moved on to protest the funerals of soldiers. It's time the FDA caught up.
-------
1Yes, I'm being unfair to your average high school student. But the point remains. I'm a very low-risk donor.
In the 80's screening was ineffective, the virus was poorly understood, and Westboro Baptists were protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims. Today the virus is much more understood, infection rates have dropped across the board, screening is effective, and the Westboro Baptists have moved on to protest the funerals of soldiers. It's time the FDA caught up.
-------
1Yes, I'm being unfair to your average high school student. But the point remains. I'm a very low-risk donor.
There is another point here that is important, which I tried to address in some other posts. There are may more significant risks associated with procedures and surgeries than tainted blood. For sure, tainted blood is a bad thing. No one wants to get a disease. But people focus on it so much, they ignore the threat posed by improper sterilization of equipment and other factors. Just last year, I believe in the Las Vegas area, thousands of people were potentially exposed because of improper sterilization of colonoscopy equipment. The VA also infected up to 10,000 veterans because of improperly sterilized endoscopes. Since them about 14 have tested positive for hep b, 34 for hepatitis c and 6 for HIV. I may be wrong, but I can't find a single case of a person who contracted anything from a blood transfusion recenlty. So this whole debate does need to be placed into perspective. The fact is, you are much more likely to catch an ilness because of doctor and nurse negligence, than because of tainted blood in the blood supply.
There is another point here that is important, which I tried to address in some other posts. There are may more significant risks associated with procedures and surgeries than tainted blood. For sure, tainted blood is a bad thing. No one wants to get a disease. But people focus on it so much, they ignore the threat posed by improper sterilization of equipment and other factors. . . The fact is, you are much more likely to catch an ilness because of doctor and nurse negligence, than because of tainted blood in the blood supply.
I definitely agree with you there. The number of poeple who get the wrong leg, wrong arm, or wrong side of their brain operated on (because of mistakes in reading and/or writing their chart) is alarming.
Is it ethical to lie? No. Should you do it anyways? No.
Are there likely to be consequences? No, but ethics aren't based on consequences.
Do you have the numbers? I'm curious if it's really that bad...
Just made a check to see how it is here in the Netherlands, but "sexual preference" isn't even on the list of questions, which leads me to believe that either there's a lot of sick people on the other side of the ocean or it's homophobia, but I won't know until I've seen the numbers
It's neither.
It's being realistic and trying to protect people.
Why don't you stop the America bashing? You do it every chance you get.
I don't bash America, I bash stupid policies. It's not my fault that only the American ones come up due to the tendency of people to:
1) whine about things
2) post about things happening in the country they come from
If the danger is in having anal sex, then the criteria on the chart should be "have you had anal sex?"
It's rubbish that a gay virgin cannot donate blood, while a guy who bangs chicks in the ass every weekend, cán.
It's rubbish that a gay virgin cannot donate blood, while a guy who bangs chicks in the ass every weekend, cán.
To be clear, a "gay virgin" can donate (and I did when I was such), but if you're a man that has ever had sex with a man since 1977, you can't.
(Unless of course it actually mentions that on the form, which it probably does? I've never seen one.)
Makes it a bit better then I was afraid it'd be.
Heh. That's an interesting concept of "gay" then.
They don't care about the identity politics, just if you're a man that's had sex with a man.
They don't care about the identity politics, just if you're a man that's had sex with a man.
That explains a lot. Even with gay men being as sexually promiscuous and careless as straight men, and anal sex being more risky than other forms of intercourse, it (the HIV infection rate) still sounded like a very high number. But including all men who've had sex with men makes it much more probable. Still a stupid rule, but at least the numbers make sense.
However, I don't believe that the blood supply is a place for worrying about tolerance. The most important thing should be keeping the blood supply clean.
Sure, and in this particular case, the person donating can say with 99% certainty that he is donating clean blood. That is far more certainty than most of the other people donating will have. The safety to our blood supply posed by Escher's donation (should he prove clean) is far less than that posed by your average straight schmoe who took home three chicks he barely knows in the past two weeks, has never been tested, and was able to give blood without lying in the chair right next to Escher.
Given the choice between the two – a gay man who has recently been tested for a gamut of bloodborne diseases and showed to be clean, and a straight man who is sexually active but has never been tested – I would choose Escher for sure.
Basically do whichever you think will cause you the least emotional unrest and damn the rest.
However, I don't believe that the blood supply is a place for worrying about tolerance. The most important thing should be keeping the blood supply clean.
Sure, and in this particular case, the person donating can say with 99% certainty that he is donating clean blood. That is far more certainty than most of the other people donating will have. The safety to our blood supply posed by Escher's donation (should he prove clean) is far less than that posed by your average straight schmoe who took home three chicks he barely knows in the past two weeks, has never been tested, and was able to give blood without lying in the chair right next to Escher.
Given the choice between the two – a gay man who has recently been tested for a gamut of bloodborne diseases and showed to be clean, and a straight man who is sexually active but has never been tested – I would choose Escher for sure.
The issue is, on a policy level, this sort of thing wouldn't work, which is why they try to weed out high risk donars. All blood is tested, and the tests they use to screen the blood is over 99% accurate. But, because the timing of the tests is so important, and even that less than 1% chance still means thousands of people could potentially be exposed to tainted blood, they need to take what precautions they can.
I do agree that in the situation that escher presented, it basically looks like the blood would be safe. But as a policy, I think eliminating any high risk donar, is important. If you can't give blood, you can't give blood. It honestly isn't a very big deal. And the end interest is public health.
I mean, they can scissor and stuff, and I'm sure body fluids get exchanged that way...
Or is it just gay men?
Do women have the same restrictions?
I mean, they can scissor and stuff, and I'm sure body fluids get exchanged that way...
Or is it just gay men?
The rate of transmission from woman to woman is very low, I believe lower than man to woman.
The issue is, on a policy level, this sort of thing wouldn't work, which is why they try to weed out high risk donars.
If it doesn't work, then how come it does work for every heterosexual out there? How can they weed out high-risk heterosexuals without throwing the entire lot out but not do the same for gay men? Face it, hets do everything us homos do, and by the raw numbers you do it more often, and by percentages you do it with less protection.
So if they can screen for high-risk behavior among heterosexuals, why can't they among gay men?
Do women have the same restrictions?
Women are mostly infected via high-risk heterosexual contact, then by intraveneous drug use. By the CDC's reports, transmission through homosexual contact for women doesn't even make the pie chart.
I assure you there was a reason for that. I just can't explain it within the bounds set by our harsh mistress the CoC. And now I feel guilty about laughing in this thread so I'll attempt to contribute:
EE, I don't know about this lying thing. I mean, if you were found out, the whole crop o' blood could be destroyed and that's bad. Plus, you could face some legal issues or something. This is also bad but could also be good. I mean, would you be ok if you were basically martyred for the cause? Do it, get caught and then try to play it all out as publicly as possible? That could shed some light on this issue. The likelihood of that happening is pretty remote, but it's something that could be possible. Or something.
The other thing to consider is your hopeful career path. Couldn't that get all sorts of messed up from getting caught doing something like this?
I mean, if you were found out, the whole crop o' blood could be destroyed and that's bad.
Ok, seriously, why do people keep saying that? When they take blood it's not like they just dump it into a big wash basin and then just scoop it out with a ladel when it's needed. Your blood doesn't mix with anyone elses, it sits in it's own pack, labeled and everything. Now, maybe y'all know something I don't, but why do people seem to think that after being so careful to keep everything seperate and sanitary and safe that they're going to start mixing things up after the donor leaves the room?
Heck, when I was donating regularly they gave me a little card everytime and said "if you get sick in the next week give us a call because that means the bug is already in your blood and we'll need to destroy it". Is there something I'm missing here? Do hospitals have secret blood baths in the basement that they dump all of a given blood type into and then scoop out with a ladel and put it back into the individual blood packets?
Plus, you could face some legal issues or something. This is also bad but could also be good. I mean, would you be ok if you were basically martyred for the cause?
Again, the legality isn't a real question here, and I think everyone is seriously overestimating risk of legal repercussions. I suppose I should write a letter to the ACLU just in case, but you lot are far more paranoid about that then I am.
In other news, I want a PM that tells me why you giggled. I'm curious.
If I get an STD test first so I'm 100% sure that I don't have HIV/AIDS, is it ethically permissable to lie to United Blood Services about my sexual history next time they have a blood drive so that I can donate?
No. Lying is unethical. That your goal for doing so is a laudable one doesn't change that.
The ban/restrictions on blood donation based on sexual history/orientation is rubbish. There are a huge number of lifestyle issues and activities irrespective of one's sexual orientation which are just as potentially negatively impactful. To single out homosexuals is nothing more than profiling, plain and simple.
Again, folks in here are equating ethics with consequences.
Not me. I was just tossin' out some random thoughts. I never once used the word 'ethics' or any derivative.
I do agree that in the situation that escher presented, it basically looks like the blood would be safe. But as a policy, I think eliminating any high risk donar, is important. If you can't give blood, you can't give blood. It honestly isn't a very big deal. And the end interest is public health.
There are thousands and thousands of heterosexual people who donate despite engaging in risky behavior, and, I guarantee, probably on the order of hundreds of gay men who contribute and simply lie on the questionairre. If all of these people somehow manage to contribute to the safest blood supply int he world, why can't they just ask some slightly pickier questions so that gay men, particularly those who have been tested? (Incidentally, when a straight person is tested, there is exactly the same risk that the test was wrong.)
But regardless, the question was not whether or not the Red Cross' policy is a good one. The question was whether it is ethical to lie to them in order to donate blood (which they always need and will almost certainly get used to save somebody's life) if you actually know, better than they do, how clean or dangerous your blood is.
So here is my conclusion: the Red Cross is making an educated guess as to the risk level of Escher's blood based on who he has sex with. Escher is also making an educated guess (since no test is 100% conclusive), but he is doing so based on information that is far, far more accurate than the criteria that the Red Cross is using. Therefore, Escher's educated guess is more likely to be accurate, which is ultimately all that anybody cares about (including the Red Cross).
As a comparison, you are asked to estimate the risk of 100 sandwiches. You immediately throw away those made by people with bare hands, because most people do not wash their hands often enough, but if they were wearing rubber gloves they are more likely to have changed them in the past few minutes and therefore the sandwich is more likely to be clean.
However, if you gain specific information that a specific sandwich was made by somebody who has just washed their hands, it should be put back into the clean batch.
Likewise, if you have specific information that a sandwich was made by somebody who had not swapped out their rubber gloves recently, that sandwich should go into the dirty pile.
Getting enough clean sandwiches into the clean batch is more important than having a rigorous policy regarding rubber gloves. The rubber glove policy is only a means to an end. So it is acceptable to add a clean sandwich even if it violates the rubber glove policy, because the rubber glove policy is there for expedience, not because there is actually anything wrong with bare hands in and of themselves.
If it doesn't work, then how come it does work for every heterosexual out there? How can they weed out high-risk heterosexuals without throwing the entire lot out but not do the same for gay men? Face it, hets do everything us homos do, and by the raw numbers you do it more often, and by percentages you do it with less protection.
It doesn't. I think you misunderstand my point, I am talking about allowing anyone in the high risk category to donate blood because of specific precautionary steps (i.e. getting tested prior to donation). On the second part, I can't say. I've heard all kinds of conflicting numbers for that issue. But I suspect gay men engage in anal sex more frequently than most heterosexuals. However, I am fine with making anal sex the criteria, since it is inherently more risky than vaginal sex.
So if they can screen for high-risk behavior among heterosexuals, why can't they among gay men?
Because to be a sexual active homosexual man, you probably have to engage in anal sex, which is more risky than vaginal sex. That said, I am okay with making the act itself, and not someone's sexual identity, the criteria. It isn't just about practicing safe sex. Even with a condom, anal sex poses a greater risk.
There are thousands and thousands of heterosexual people who donate despite engaging in risky behavior, and, I guarantee, probably on the order of hundreds of gay men who contribute and simply lie on the questionairre. If all of these people somehow manage to contribute to the safest blood supply int he world, why can't they just ask some slightly pickier questions so that gay men, particularly those who have been tested? (Incidentally, when a straight person is tested, there is exactly the same risk that the test was wrong.)
They could produce and more picky questionairre (and they should because they don't probe heterosexual risks enough), but it is frankly much easier and more effective to completely eliminated the highest risk group from the pool.
There is the same risk the test was wrong, but the chances that the homosexual has HIV to begin with is greater.
There is the same risk the test was wrong, but the chances that the homosexual has HIV to begin with is greater.
No, that is wrong.
A gay man with a one partner and no symptoms who uses protection is significantly less likely to be infected than a straight person with multiple partners who engages in unsafe sex.
Just being homosexual does not increase your chances of having HIV, anymore than being black does.
There is the same risk the test was wrong, but the chances that the homosexual has HIV to begin with is greater.
No, that is wrong.
A gay man with a one partner and no symptoms who uses protection is significantly less likely to be infected than a straight person with multiple partners who engages in unsafe sex.
Just being homosexual does not increase your chances of having HIV, anymore than being black does.
You are missing the point. They aren't concerned about the specific people. Of course a gay man who has one partner, isn't at greater risk. Heck a gay man who has never been exposed to the virus has a lower risk than a heterosexual of having HIV. These are generalizations about groups of people in order to mitigate the overall risk posed to the blood supply. No one is saying every homosexual man is at high risk for HIV. They are saying, on average, homosexuals are higher risk than heterosuxuals to the blood supply, so they remove them entirely from the pool.
They are saying, on average, homosexuals are higher risk than heterosuxuals to the blood supply, so they remove them entirely from the pool.
What you said was that if 1% of test cases are false negatives, then a gay person who tests negative is more likely to have HIV than a straight person. That's not how statistics work. If 1% of the people who take the test get false negatives, then there will be more gay people who get false negatives than straight people. A specific gay person may or may not have a higher risk than a specific straight person.
We're talking about Escher here, a specific gay person with specific knowledge about his specific situation, which is far better and more accurate information than the information gathered by the Red Cross.
On the second part, I can't say. I've heard all kinds of conflicting numbers for that issue. But I suspect gay men engage in anal sex more frequently than most heterosexuals.
[link] for condom use statistic in New York, [link] for prevalence in general.
And I'd like to point out that the Kinsey number of 1-in-10 is way too high, he had a very biased sample.
Because to be a sexual active homosexual man, you probably have to engage in anal sex [...]
Eh, no. That's wrong. There's oral, manual, frot, between-the-thighs, and so-on. Unless you're defining "sex" in such a way that's pretty limiting (in which case you're not alone [link]), you can be plenty sexually active without doing that.
No one is saying every homosexual man is at high risk for HIV.
When you have a life-time ban based on a single act, it sure sounds like that's exactly what they're saying.
They are saying, on average, homosexuals are higher risk than heterosuxuals to the blood supply, so they remove them entirely from the pool.
What you said was that if 1% of test cases are false negatives, then a gay person who tests negative is more likely to have HIV than a straight person. That's not how statistics work. If 1% of the people who take the test get false negatives, then there will be more gay people who get false negatives than straight people. A specific gay person may or may not have a higher risk than a specific straight person.
I agree a specific gay person is a different situation. They are reducing the overall chances of tainted blood entering the pool, by eliminating the highest risk group. The more high risk people contributing to the blood supply, the more likely you will have blood in circulation that is HIV positive (because there remains the under 1% failure rate of the test.
Because to be a sexual active homosexual man, you probably have to engage in anal sex [...]
Eh, no. That's wrong. There's oral, manual, frot, between-the-thighs, and so-on. Unless you're defining "sex" in such a way that's pretty limiting (in which case you're not alone [link]), you can be plenty sexually active without doing that.
I meant more likely to engage in anal sex. Obviously people of all sexual orientations who want to reduce risk of transmission can use other methods.
No one is saying every homosexual man is at high risk for HIV.
When you have a life-time ban based on a single act, it sure sounds like that's exactly what they're saying.
No. They are saying homosexuals as a groups are at higher risk (the highest risk), so it is just easier to take them out of the pool of blood donors. No one is saying this is the perfect system. But it does help reduce the risk to the blood supply. I think it would be better if they just asked about behavior. But one of the behaviors that should eliminate people from the pool, in my opinion, is anal sex.
I agree a specific gay person is a different situation. They are reducing the overall chances of tainted blood entering the pool, by eliminating the highest risk group.
No. They are saying homosexuals as a groups are at higher risk (the highest risk), so it is just easier to take them out of the pool of blood donors.
Well there's your problem: you are working off a faulty assumption.
Gay men aren't the highest risk group. For more than 10 years now heterosexualy acquired HIV/AIDS has far outstripped all other sexualy transmitted groups. Logically, then, anyone who has partaken of heterosexual intercourse. Thus by your reasoning heterosexuals should be banned as they have a greater risk of carrying the virus than do gay men, yes?
I agree a specific gay person is a different situation. They are reducing the overall chances of tainted blood entering the pool, by eliminating the highest risk group.
Well there's your problem: you are working off a faulty assumption.
Gay men aren't the highest risk group. For more than 10 years now heterosexualy acquired HIV/AIDS has far outstripped all other sexualy transmitted groups. Logically, then, anyone who has partaken of heterosexual intercourse. Straight men should be banned as they have a greater risk of carrying the virus than do gay men.
Not according to the CDC. The highest risk group for HIV in the US, according to their web page and literature they've distributed, is men who have sex with men. Outisde of the US, the numbers are different. But within the US, the data doesn't support your assertion.
Also, Ra's Al Ghul is a moron. Ever since the western, poisoning the well has been the gold standard of villainy. Ra's had access to the water supply for Gotham City since almost the beginning of the movie, and he still did not manage to destroy the city. If the Joker had access like that the movie would have been called "Batman Almost Begins, but Then He Has a Sip of Tap Water and Dies."
In case that wasn't clear... 53% of new infections are from MSM contact. 51% of new infections are among African Americans.
Never heard of anyone calling for a ban on them though.
Not according to the CDC. The highest risk group for HIV in the US, according to their web page and literature they've distributed, is men who have sex with men. Outisde of the US, the numbers are different. But within the US, the data doesn't support your assertion.
Being that I am not American nor within the US I do tend to adopt a more Global - rather than exclusively Amerocentric - perspective when discussing issues.
Yeah, MSM beat out all others in transmission method. Wanna know something fun? They only beat out African Americans by 2%.
In case that wasn't clear... 53% of new infections are from MSM contact. 51% of new infections are among African Americans.
Never heard of anyone calling for a ban on them though.
That's 104%, man! Either the CDC is really bad at math or there's some crossover in those groups. ;)
Yeah, MSM beat out all others in transmission method. Wanna know something fun? They only beat out African Americans by 2%.
In case that wasn't clear... 53% of new infections are from MSM contact. 51% of new infections are among African Americans.
Never heard of anyone calling for a ban on them though.
Well, to be fair, the African Americans did not get AIDS by being African American. The men who have sex with men probably did get their AIDS by having sex with men.
However, it does sort of refute the idea that the Red Cross is just trying to eliminate the most high risk blood.
Yeah, MSM beat out all others in transmission method. Wanna know something fun? They only beat out African Americans by 2%.
In case that wasn't clear... 53% of new infections are from MSM contact. 51% of new infections are among African Americans.
Never heard of anyone calling for a ban on them though.
I don't think those numbers are correct.
Being that I am not American nor within the US I do tend to adopt a more Global - rather than exclusively Amerocentric - perspective when discussing issues.
But in this case borders matter. The high risk groups are different in the US, than say South Africa or Thailand. You want to tailor your programs to the individual countries.
That's 104%, man! Either the CDC is really bad at math or there's some crossover in those groups. ;)
That there's cross-over should be obvious. The 53% number is when you break down new infections by transmission method, the 51% was when you broke it down by race. There's no conflict at all.
If you want to look at the CDC's statistics themselves, they're all availible online [link].
I don't think those numbers are correct.
Any basis for that, or are you just refusing to believe the CDC?
If you can plainly see that there are no cars in either direction, is it unethical to jaywalk?
No, but it is illegal.
Noone has been questioning legality here. All things proposed are clearly identified as illegal. Please try to keep up.
That's 104%, man! Either the CDC is really bad at math or there's some crossover in those groups. ;)
That there's cross-over should be obvious. The 53% number is when you break down new infections by transmission method, the 51% was when you broke it down by race. There's no conflict at all.
If you want to look at the CDC's statistics themselves, they're all availible online [link].I don't think those numbers are correct.
Any basis for that, or are you just refusing to believe the CDC?
No, but they are misleading. Because the black category also includes men who sleep with men. There is a much better break down somewhere on the website, that divides it further into black heterosexual men and black homosexual men, but also combines the totals.
domestic violence = petty, stupid, and lame
tainting America's blood supply with gayness = diabolical, crafty, and wicked
This thread, and thoes in it, have spent the better part of 2 super sized pages encouraging illegal activety.
Not everyone. I said it's unethical and should not be done.
Should've read a litte further, TA.
This thread has basically been respectful, so I think that also has a large amount to do with it. When we start losing our tempers, it will get shut down.
Basically. That or the some poster will get a bug up their butt when people disagree with them and complain till it gets shut down.
This thread has basically been respectful, so I think that also has a large amount to do with it. When we start losing our tempers, it will get shut down.
Basically. That or the some poster will get a bug up their butt when people disagree with them and complain till it gets shut down.
Hadn't thought of that possibility. It is a touchy subject. Surprised it hasn't happened already.
No, but they are misleading. Because the black category also includes men who sleep with men. There is a much better break down somewhere on the website, that divides it further into black heterosexual men and black homosexual men, but also combines the totals.
... I'm not sure how the heck that's misleading. If you break down new infections by transmission method, the largest category is MSM contact.
If you break it down by the race of the infected, the largest category is African Americans.
That's not misleading at all.
No, but they are misleading. Because the black category also includes men who sleep with men. There is a much better break down somewhere on the website, that divides it further into black heterosexual men and black homosexual men, but also combines the totals.
... I'm not sure how the heck that's misleading. If you break down new infections by transmission method, the largest category is MSM contact.
If you break it down by the race of the infected, the largest category is African Americans.
That's not misleading at all.
Because when you remove the man to man cases from that pool, the difference between the two is much greater than 2 percent. You are trying to argue there is only a 2% difference, but you are feeding the M2M contact category back into the black category, which is why it is misleading. The core issue, really is anal sex, which is more risky. So think the solution is have that be the criteria. As well as other risk factors (multiple partners, unsafe sex, etc).
I tried once to have this human body donate blood only to be turned away due to him residing on a military base in Germany during the BSE incident. He's apparently too high-risk for new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. So until this body is allowed to donate before it expires, this "charity" won't get a drop of his blood. Though my database is uncertain as to how expensive it would be to diagnose nvCJD as opposed to HIV/AIDS.
They pretty much bar donations from anyone who lived in western Europe.
Tisk. DS, I'm sure everyone has understood what both parties where trying to say for some time now. It's just more entertaining this way.
They're both right, though. Statistically speaking, you can't compare the size of two groups accurately when there's some overlap between the groups. That said, there really isn't a fair way to do it unless you were to compare whether being a gay man, black, or both is a greater risk factor (and thus not discard any data, just move the overlap into its own group).
Of course, it would certainly raise eyebrows if someone were to do that (what makes black gays so special that they get their own category? Why not break all categories up by both race and infection method?). Meh, I'm overthinking this.
We have a very large box full of building blocks. About half of them are red, the other half is green. Also, about half of them are cubes, while the others are spheres. Being red or green has no bearing on whether a block is a cube or a sphere.
Spheres make terrible building blocks.
Wow, seriously? That's odd to hear, I always thought we had among the best healthcare in the world here...
In America? Not even close. As of 2009 the US ranked #37.
On topic:
Based on the information from this thread, I would say it is not unethical to lie to donate blood. That is based on idea that the fact which you are lying about is to weed out HIV and that you have more information on your HIV status.
I do not believe that lying is always unethical and you have to consider more factors than a simple idea that something is always right and something is always wrong.
But with that said, I wouldn't do it. I regularly give blood very regularly, but I don't think its something that is worth the possible ramifications (even if they are small). I just don't think its a big deal to donate blood, but that's just my opinion.
Off-topic:
For the discussion on gay v blacks, I agree that you should not compare those groups side by side. I don't have data on risk, but I'll try to explain why they should not be compared.
You should compare the data against the same type of data (race v race, infection means v infection means). I will illustrate this is numbers that I'll make up:
Let's keep the idea that 53% gay and 51% black are at risk. That may seem comparable, but they may not depending on the other percentages in their categories.
For example:
51% black, 42% white, etc
vs
53% gay sex, 35% hetero sex, etc
I don't actually know the numbers, but in that example, you can see that saying its really a 9% increase v a 18% increase (instead of 2%).
Again, as I have said, I do not know the actual numbers, but that is why you have to look at the data compared against the same factors before determining if the difference is significant.
Disclaimer: This is an argument on the methodology of comparing the two groups and not if I think a group should or should not be excluded since I do not have real data.
Wow, seriously? That's odd to hear, I always thought we had among the best healthcare in the world here...
In America? Not even close. As of 2009 the US ranked #37.
No in Western Europe. What countries make up the top 5?
We have a very large box full of building blocks. About half of them are red, the other half is green. Also, about half of them are cubes, while the others are spheres. Being red or green has no bearing on whether a block is a cube or a sphere.
Spheres make terrible building blocks.
I know, that's why so many of them were broken in my example.
I know, that's why so many of them were broken in my example.
Excellent point. I'd be willing to bet that frustration played quite the part in their destruction.
Wow, seriously? That's odd to hear, I always thought we had among the best healthcare in the world here...
In America? Not even close. As of 2009 the US ranked #37.
I believe when Americans say the health care is the best in this country, it is because they aren't focusing on overall health of the population, but on what they perceive to be the best healthcare, with the most advanced treatments. In some respects they are correct. If you have a lot of money, you can get some of the best treatments in the world, because the US leads the way in new procedures and attracts some of the best doctors. But the obvious downside of the system is, if you don't have much money, you can't always get treatment (so having the latest MRI machine, or the most cutting edge surgical procedure is meaningless to most people in the states).
I have been treated in the states, in my home country and in Canada. It still baffles me that people in the US don't want the Canadian deal on principal alone. I could understand if the argument was, we can't afford it now. But most people who argue against a single payer system, make a kind of teach a man to fish/horatio alger argument. Which I have to tell you, makes no sense to somone like me who has lived outside the US. Why wouldn't you want to not have to worry about medical bills?
No in Western Europe. What countries make up the top 5?
According to the World Health Organizaiton the top 5 are:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
I think this is a leading skewed cos San Marino, Andorra and Malta are all tiny (San Marino in parituclar is virtually just a city-state) and thus don't have to deal with many issues affecting much larger countries, but if you expand the list to the top 10 you see some much larger and more populous nations making an appearance.
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
None of those countries on the top 10 comes close to US ...
Why don't you stop America bashing and spreading half-truths and talking points?
Why don't you stop America bashing and spreading half-truths and talking points?
Because [insert choice of whatever here] bashing, spreading half-truths and talking points is a time-honored American tradition?
Why don't you stop America bashing and spreading half-truths and talking points?
Because [insert choice of whatever here] bashing, spreading half-truths and talking points is a time-honored American tradition?
You know as well as I do that boraxe doesn't pass up the chance to bash things others believe in... and he does it gleefully and with smugness.
It is getting on my nerves...
Apparently, in France you are most likely to survive.
Just because there are lists that do not have the US on the number 1 spot, does not mean that someone is "bashing america".
Besides, as Boraxe already said; the top 5 is skewed due to low population density, but the top 10 is much less so.
At any rate; it's stupid to include the US as a whole IMHO, you'd get a much better view if you'd list all the states seperately.
Why don't you stop America bashing and spreading half-truths and talking points?
Because [insert choice of whatever here] bashing, spreading half-truths and talking points is a time-honored American tradition?
To be fair here, it would be like one of us attacking the country that Boraxe comes from (I believe he said he wasn't from the US). I think if it troubles Robin, we can make an effort to discuss the topic respectfully. I meant no disrespect to America in my criticism. I love living here. I just am puzzled by the american attitude toward healthcare, but maybe that is because I am an outsider.
Does it matter for "good healthcare" how much taxes people pay? He simply made a list, objectively researched, that says "if a random person where to have a horrible accident, where would he be most likely to recover?"
Apparently, in France you are most likely to survive.
Just because there are lists that do not have the US on the number 1 spot, does not mean that someone is "bashing america".
Besides, as Boraxe already said; the top 5 is skewed due to low population density, but the top 10 is much less so.
At any rate; it's stupid to include the US as a whole IMHO, you'd get a much better view if you'd list all the states seperately.
My question is what question that list answers. Is it just a ranking of life expectancy by country? If so, does that really reflect the quality of the healthcare system. I could have the best healthcare in the world, but if I drink bacon grease and watch TV all day, I won't live very long (I am not implying that American's do that by the way, just an example).
You know as well as I do that boraxe doesn't pass up the chance to bash things others believe in... and he does it gleefully and with smugness.
If you don't want answers, don't ask questions.
To be fair here [...]
... why should I be fair about snark?
you can't compare the size of two groups accurately when there's some overlap between the groups.
Of course you can. Who likes ice cream? 6 hands go up. Who likes pizza? 9 hands go up. There are only 10 people in front of you:
Assuming noone is raising more than one hand in answer to each question and everyone answered truthfully, which group is bigger?
A) People who like ice cream
B) People who like pizza
C) Impossible to tell as the overlap invalidates the comparison of 6 to 9.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and declare B as the correct answer in the above scenario
To be fair here [...]
... why should I be fair about snark?
Because the concern is a reasonable one. And attacking peoples' home countries is, I am sure, a violation of the CoC, plus is not conducive to a friendly discussion. I haven't been around here very long, so I am sure there is stuff I've missed, but from my brief experience it looks like some people are just giving Robin the finger, not acknowledging a legitimate concern, because Robin is to the right of center and represents a viable target here.
Because the concern is a reasonable one.
- If "reasonable" was a reason not to snark, most comedians would be out of jobs.
- Most news reporters too.
- When it comes to Boraxe and Hater sniping at each other, "reasonable" isn't worth [MESSAGE REDACTED] in the wind.
Of course you can. Who likes ice cream? 6 hands go up. Who likes pizza? 9 hands go up. There are only 10 people in front of you:
Assuming noone is raising more than one hand in answer to each question and everyone answered truthfully, which group is bigger?
A) People who like ice cream
B) People who like pizza
C) Impossible to tell as the overlap invalidates the comparison of 6 to 9.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and declare B as the correct answer in the above scenario
You're correct, but that's an entirely different scenario.
We're not comparing which members of one group like two things, we're comparing whether members of one of two groups (with some overlap) are a higher risk for one thing.
If you're trying to find out whether being gay or being black is a higher risk factor, a gay black man gets added to both groups. While this causes no problems if you're just screening by race, or just screening by infection method, when you line them up side by side and make comparisons then you have a problem. As has already been pointed out 53% +51% = ERROR!
And please, don't go back to your example. In yours it's very easy to break it down into which percentage like pizza, ice cream, both, or neither.
We're not comparing which members of one group like two things, we're comparing whether members of one of two groups (with some overlap) are a higher risk for one thing.
... no... I was just giving an example of another group that was getting infections grossly disproportionate to their population.
To try and prove anything about which was a higher risk factor, you'd have to control for the other factor (not just removing the overlap) using some various analysis methods that I'm too lazy to look up and explain.
But I wasn't doing that. I was just saying "hey, look at this!"
Different beast entirely.
... no... I was just giving an example of another group that was getting infections grossly disproportionate to their population.
To try and prove anything about which was a higher risk factor, you'd have to control for the other factor (not just removing the overlap) using some various analysis methods that I'm too lazy to look up and explain.
But I wasn't doing that. I was just saying "hey, look at this!"
Different beast entirely.
Mhm. I'm totally agreeing with you, as was Seventh Solitude. We're just saying that the 51% vs 53% isn't entirely accurate, that's all. We're just quibbling over numbers. I'm only doing it because I'm a nerd.
Toasted Amphibian is just muddying the waters, likely on purpose.
It's also tends to be somewhat harder for most people to convincingly lie about being black, so there is that.
Mhm. I'm totally agreeing with you, as was Seventh Solitude. We're just saying that the 51% vs 53% isn't entirely accurate, that's all. We're just quibbling over numbers. I'm only doing it because I'm a nerd.
No... SeventhSolitude was saying you can't compare them at all, that it just wouldn't be fair. Several times. In a row.
As I said before, I think he's being weird about it and I don't fully undestand why.
To SeventhSolitude: At least for me, I believe the healthcare situation mirrors almost every situation in the US. If you have money, its the best; if not, then tough luck. That is pretty much the foundation of how the US is built. If I have money, I'll have a great education. If I don't, I'll have a crappier one. The fear is that if you have a state system, the bottom will rise, but the top will also collapse. Also, many Americans have no faith in the government (with good reason in my opinion).
Mhm. I'm totally agreeing with you, as was Seventh Solitude. We're just saying that the 51% vs 53% isn't entirely accurate, that's all. We're just quibbling over numbers. I'm only doing it because I'm a nerd.
No... SeventhSolitude was saying you can't compare them at all, that it just wouldn't be fair. Several times. In a row.
As I said before, I think he's being weird about it and I don't fully undestand why.
But I was saying that in direct response to your numbers. I mentioned again and again, I disagreed with the 2 percent comparison. Of course you can compare the two groups, but when you do so, you need to understand they there is tremendous cross-over. That is all I am saying. And I agreed with your underlying point that both represent high risk categories.
Care to do a comparison of population density and tax revenue on that list Boraxe?
None of those countries on the top 10 comes close to US ...
Not really as the list was not compiled by me. Since you have an issue with it and seek to prove something then please, be my guest.
Why don't you stop America bashing and spreading half-truths and talking points?
Quoting the World Health Organization is not "American bashing" nor am I "spreading half-truths and talking points".
To SeventhSolitude: At least for me, I believe the healthcare situation mirrors almost every situation in the US. If you have money, its the best; if not, then tough luck. That is pretty much the foundation of how the US is built. If I have money, I'll have a great education. If I don't, I'll have a crappier one. The fear is that if you have a state system, the bottom will rise, but the top will also collapse. Also, many Americans have no faith in the government (with good reason in my opinion).
I can understand it in other sectors of the economy. I guess what confuses me is why Americans like paying a lot of their hard earned money for health care. Unless you are rich, it is a large part of your income not only to pay for insurance, but to pay for the things insurance doesn't cover. Don't people realize their overall quality of life would improve tremendously if they had a European or Canadian healthcare system?
Again, I can understand the economic argument against it (i.e. we can't afford it, taxes would be too high). But it seems like most of the people on TV and radio arguing against single payer or even the health care bill that passed, do so on philosophical grounds; pulling oneself up by ones' own bootstraps sort of a thing.
You know as well as I do that boraxe doesn't pass up the chance to bash things others believe in... and he does it gleefully and with smugness.
You are mistaken. None of the above is true.
It is getting on my nerves...
Well now that you know it's simply a matter of you being mistaken that should alleviate the situation.
Cheers.
But the idea is that I don't have to select health insurance if I didn't want to. Additionally, I could choose to get cheaper (or more expensive) coverage depending on my needs. Again, I think its like most things in America, you pay and get what you pay for.
Another example is auto insurance. My state (NJ) requires auto insurance. In addition, I am financing a car, so that requires full coverage. If it weren't for these requirements, I honestly don't know if I'd get coverage or what type of coverage. But I know when I was younger (made less money and had a much less valuable car), I was very against the idea that auto insurance was mandatory. Coincidentially, NJ is known to have the highest auto insurance rates in the country.
And even though I am philosophically opposed to a government healthcare system, I do think the Healthcare Bill passed was worse. Its one thing to have the government to provide healthcare. But I think the idea that it is just mandatory to possess private healthcare just seems really stupid to me. I would have prefered a government run system where everyone was covered to a law which mandates that everyone needs to buy private healthcare. (I guess its similiar to the NJ auto insurance mandate.)
But that's all on philosophical grounds. I don't know the actual implication if the government would have taken over the healthcare industry.
I honestly don't know how much an "average" American pays in healthcare costs, but I know my costs are very little. I basically choose the best on offered at work (Aetna EPO) because it wasn't very much more than other services. I honestly couldn't tell you how much I pay since its a small portion of what is removed from my paycheck. But I also have apparently "good" healthcare so I'm sure I'm not a typical case.
I think whether your work pays and whether you get sick plays a big role here. If you don't see the cost because it is taken out of your paycheck, then that may mislead you a bit. Further if you haven't really used your health insurance, you may be unaware of the additional costs that are your responsibility. For example I pay 700 a month for my health insurance. That is about a fourth of my income. On top of that, I recently discovered I am responsible for additional costs. I needed to be screened recenlty and that cost me 500 dollars out of pocket. I have minor surgery scheduled in 3 months, and that will be another 500 dollars. Last year I was billed 1,500 for tests and medical supplies (from a single visit and treatment). My question is why would you sacrifice full health care coverage, for the perception of greater freedom. I mean you aren't exactly free if you have 5 thousand dollars in medical bills, or if you can't afford a life altering procedure.
But the idea is that I don't have to select health insurance if I didn't want to. Additionally, I could choose to get cheaper (or more expensive) coverage depending on my needs. Again, I think its like most things in America, you pay and get what you pay for.
But you don't chose whether you get sick and how sick you get. If you get sick, you either have to pay the cost or self or rely on medical coverage. When you are healthy it feels like you have choices. Once your body starts to have problems, without adequate medical coverage, you get into debt very quickly.
And even though I am philosophically opposed to a government healthcare system, I do think the Healthcare Bill passed was worse. Its one thing to have the government to provide healthcare. But I think the idea that it is just mandatory to possess private healthcare just seems really stupid to me. I would have prefered a government run system where everyone was covered to a law which mandates that everyone needs to buy private healthcare. (I guess its similiar to the NJ auto insurance mandate.)
I think a government run system makes more sense than forcing people to buy insurance.
But I was saying that in direct response to your numbers. I mentioned again and again, I disagreed with the 2 percent comparison.
So then you're being weirdly pedantic and harping on something I said one time that was pretty tangental to the actual point.
Still being weird about it.
I honestly don't know how much an "average" American pays in healthcare costs [...]
16% of the GDP is spent on healthcare costs, IIRC.
But I was saying that in direct response to your numbers. I mentioned again and again, I disagreed with the 2 percent comparison.
So then you're being weirdly pedantic and harping on something I said one time that was pretty tangental to the actual point.
Still being weird about it.
Well it was your cenral point in the post, and once I disputed it, you continued to argue against me. I only kept mentioning it, because you kept raising trying to defend your math.
Well it was your cenral point in the post, and once I disputed it, you continued to argue against me. I only kept mentioning it, because you kept raising trying to defend your math.
... no it wasn't. My entire point was "hey! Another high risk group!" That was it! Entirely! My "math" was just 53-51 as a quick point! I then gave the raw numbers so people could make informed judgements of their own!
I kept saying that yes it was a fair comparison and that no it wasn't misleading!
I like using exclamation points!
Well it was your cenral point in the post, and once I disputed it, you continued to argue against me. I only kept mentioning it, because you kept raising trying to defend your math.
... no it wasn't. My entire point was "hey! Another high risk group!" That was it! Entirely! My "math" was just 53-51 as a quick point! I then gave the raw numbers so people could make informed judgements of their own!
I kept saying that yes it was a fair comparison and that no it wasn't misleading!
I like using exclamation points!
No your point was there was only a 2 % difference between the groups, which is what I objected to specifically. I never objected that they weren't another high risk group.
I'm face palming so hard right now. I think I've suffered a concussion.
Make sure your pupils are the same size. If you get a headache or feel sick, see a doctor.
Make sure your pupils are the same size. If you get a headache or feel sick, see a doctor.
I... grag... bwu... ngh... GRGLEBRGLE!
Okay, I'm done. Have a fun little argument about telling each other what your arguments were.
No your point was there was only a 2 % difference between the groups, which is what I objected to specifically. I never objected that they weren't another high risk group.
... I cleared up any confusion about my point quite a while ago [link]. I take no responsibility for any continued misconceptions on that.
I'm face palming so hard right now. I think I've suffered a concussion.
No you're not and no you don't.
EDIT: Let me clarify. I'm saying that no, you are not face palming - at the least, if you are, you're not doing it very hard. I'm also saying that you don't think you've suffered a concussion. So that's what my problem with your statement is. And that's why I felt compelled to write this here counter statement out.
No you're not and no you don't.
EDIT: Let me clarify. I'm saying that no, you are not face palming - at the least, if you are, you're not doing it very hard. I'm also saying that you don't think you've suffered a concussion. So that's what my problem with your statement is. And that's why I felt compelled to write this here counter statement out.
Every time I'm ready to throw up my hands and writeoff a thread, something like this comes along and makes me laugh. Good job, Z_B. Thanks for reminding me why the OTT is awesome.
I'm pretty sure I pay less than $100/month...actually it might be more now since I added my wife to my plan. But its definately not a significant portion of my income. If it were, I would have opted out of it.
But as you said, the amount provided through work benefits and health levels are big factors in the calculation. Right now, I think the only thing my healthcare pays for right now is routine dental visits and my wife's OBGYN. She'll get a weird long lasting cold every now and then, but that's only once or twice a year. So if my insurance was more expensive, I probably would opt out.
I don't know if you agree, but I do equate health insurance with most kinds of insurance. You make a judgement call and if you want to take the risk, then you should be free to.
Again, auto-insurance is mandatory in my state. I've heard arguments about how that's proper because you could get into some sort of massive accident and need that insurance. Yes, it can happen, but sometimes its worth the risk. Auto-insurance isn't mandatory in other states and (I pressume) they don't have thousands of people with ruined lives because they don't have insurance.
I guess it pretty much just comes down to freedom and all jazz. Yes, if you require lots of medical procedures and don't have the money, it sucks. But I still believe people should be allowed to make those choices for themselves.
And again, I'm much less against state healthcare (conceptually) than mandating private healthcare.
SeventhSolitude: I'm pretty sure I pay less than $100/month...actually it might be more now since I added my wife to my plan. But its definately not a significant portion of my income. If it were, I would have opted out of it. But as you said, the amount provided through work benefits and health levels are big factors in the calculation. Right now, I think the only thing my healthcare pays for right now is routine dental visits and my wife's OBGYN. She'll get a weird long lasting cold every now and then, but that's only once or twice a year. So if my insurance was more expensive, I probably would opt out. I don't know if you agree, but I do equate health insurance with most kinds of insurance. You make a judgement call and if you want to take the risk, then you should be free to. Again, auto-insurance is mandatory in my state. I've heard arguments about how that's proper because you could get into some sort of massive accident and need that insurance. Yes, it can happen, but sometimes its worth the risk. Auto-insurance isn't mandatory in other states and (I pressume) they don't have thousands of people with ruined lives because they don't have insurance. I guess it pretty much just comes down to freedom and all jazz. Yes, if you require lots of medical procedures and don't have the money, it sucks. But I still believe people should be allowed to make those choices for themselves. And again, I'm much less against state healthcare (conceptually) than mandating private healthcare.
100 a month is very low. Back when my company was paying, I think it was 270. But companies also have more leverage than an individual.
The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is one is for an innanimate object (thought he coverage extends to human injury) and the other is for a human being. I can get through life without driving. I can't get through life without my medicine and treatments. You don't has choice when it comes to health. You can try to live a healthy lifestyle, but whether you get sick or not, isn't up to you. And the role insurance plays is allowing you to pay for treatment when you get sick. Otherwise, it isn't affordable. You get cancer, you could end up with a 50,000 dollar bill easy in the first year.
So auto-insurance is there so that A) I can afford my medical bills, B) they pay for my victim's medical bills, and C) they pay for the vehicles. So it is kind of similar.
You can argue that if medical insurance was a given in the situation, then the medical bill question flies out the window, but auto-insurance and health insurance hasn't been mandatory in most states for a while. And if the cars were new, the total property liability could be $50k.
I understand that health insurance and auto insurance aren't entirely equatable, but I think its a good example of why people would rather have a choice in insurance.
But the primary argument made with auto-insurance was because of personal liability. The idea was I get into an accident. I not only total my car, but I hurt myself and others. So auto-insurance is there so that A) I can afford my medical bills, B) they pay for my victim's medical bills, and C) they pay for the vehicles. So it is kind of similar. You can argue that if medical insurance was a given in the situation, then the medical bill question flies out the window, but auto-insurance and health insurance hasn't been mandatory in most states for a while. And if the cars were new, the total property liability could be $50k. I understand that health insurance and auto insurance aren't entirely equatable, but I think its a good example of why people would rather have a choice in insurance.
But my point is you have the option of not driving, if you can't afford auto insurance. So you are able to take a calculated risk there that makes sense. You can't leave your own body though. If your body breaks down, you either have to get it treated or you die.
But you (if you live outside of NJ) can drive and not be insured. Not only is this an option that is selected (I don't know the prevalence), but it does not seem to have massively horrible effects.
Driving without insurance opens you up to a situation where you can get into an accident and wind up in a similar situation as if you developed a serious illness with health insurance. You can be physical disabled without the means to pay for it OR you could harm others and be required to pay for their injuries.
Again this isn't a perfect analogy, but it seems similar enough that it can illustrate some people's reasoning.
If you don't drive, then of course, you don't need auto insurance. But you (if you live outside of NJ) can drive and not be insured. Not only is this an option that is selected (I don't know the prevalence), but it does not seem to have massively horrible effects. Driving without insurance opens you up to a situation where you can get into an accident and wind up in a similar situation as if you developed a serious illness with health insurance. You can be physical disabled without the means to pay for it OR you could harm others and be required to pay for their injuries. Again this isn't a perfect analogy, but it seems similar enough that it can illustrate some people's reasoning.
It just seems to me, that even in both cases, the perception of choice is largely an illusion.
If there is a significant portion of people who go through life without auto insurance, it really isn't an illusion of a choice. It can be a riskier choice, but it is still a choice.
Do you drive without insurance or know people who do? I don't know the prevalence of it. If there is a significant portion of people who go through life without auto insurance, it really isn't an illusion of a choice. It can be a riskier choice, but it is still a choice.
My point is, you basically need insurance to drive. If you don't the risks for not driving with insurance, mean you have less of a choice in the matter than you think (unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to burn). In a similar way, you basically need health care coverage. The risks for not having it, mean you have less of a choice in the matter than you think.
Would it be ethical for my wife or I to lie about our oral piercings in order to donate blood?
My state has a law that you can't donate blood with oral piercings. You have to remove them and wait a full year to donate.
Speaking of ethics....
Would it be ethical for my wife or I to lie about our oral piercings in order to donate blood?
My state has a law that you can't donate blood with oral piercings. You have to remove them and wait a full year to donate.
I don't think it is ethical for you to do so. Having the oral piercings certainly put you in a higher risk category for things like HIV or Hepatitis.
Speaking of ethics....
Would it be ethical for my wife or I to lie about our oral piercings in order to donate blood?
My state has a law that you can't donate blood with oral piercings. You have to remove them and wait a full year to donate.
I don't think it is ethical for you to do so. Having the oral piercings certainly put you in a higher risk category for things like HIV or Hepatitis.
But, I don't have HIV or hepatitis, regardless of risk categories.
Speaking of ethics....
Would it be ethical for my wife or I to lie about our oral piercings in order to donate blood?
My state has a law that you can't donate blood with oral piercings. You have to remove them and wait a full year to donate.
I don't think it is ethical for you to do so. Having the oral piercings certainly put you in a higher risk category for things like HIV or Hepatitis.
But, I don't have HIV or hepatitis, regardless of risk categories.
When were you last tested for both? Let's say you had an HIV test, a Hepatitis Test; the full battery of STD tests a week ago. If you are wearing the ring, you are still currently higher risk. Chances are you haven't done anything to expose yourself recently, but the concern with things like oral piercings is the increased chance of blood disease transmission from things like deep kissing, oral sex, etc. Again, I would come down on following the rules of the questionaire.
Haven't been tested since I went down to one partner, so I'm not actually going to lie about it. Just wanted to post an additional dilema.
But for arguments sake:
Tested today, negative for anything tranmissible (magically fast and accurate test results), go to give blood immediately, and I lie on the application about how long my lip ring has been removed.
Ethical or not?
Morally commendable or not?
Speaking of ethics....
Would it be ethical for my wife or I to lie about our oral piercings in order to donate blood?
My state has a law that you can't donate blood with oral piercings. You have to remove them and wait a full year to donate.
As I don't know the full reasoning/science behind that partuclar ban, I'm not informed enough to make a call either way. I imagine it's something along the lines of the piercing giving an unusually vulnerable point of infection or something to that mind, but as I really don't know, I'd have to defer to the experts which, in this case, would be the FDA.
And are you sure it's a state law and not something handed down by the FDA1? While I wouldn't put it past a state to pass such a law, that seems unusually particular.
Re: Auto Insurance
New Mexico also makes it a punishable offense (I think it's just a fine, but I'm really not sure) to drive without insurance. It's always fun being cited because your current insurance card just ran out and you haven't gotten the new insurance card yet. Fortunatley in that case you can just head to the courthouse before your hearing and show that you were covered and they clear you.
________
1Yeah, I'm assumming you're in the states.
ing insanity.What happens when you get rear-ended by someone without insurance? I'm curious...
Personally I even think it should be something that should be managed by the government instead of by companies, but then that's me being a communist I guess
It's too dangerous to drive around with insurance, both for yourself (but that's you choice, it's your life) but more importantly to other people. I'm fine with people driving off a bridge without insurance, but when someone else suffers from your stupidity it becomes a different story.
What happens when you get rear-ended by someone without insurance? I'm curious...
In Tennessee, I think it depends on your insurance. Liabilty insurance vs comprehensive insurance.
If you have liability insurance, you're only covered for issues that you cause directly. If you have comprehensive insurance you're covered either way. So hopefully you aren't rear-ended by someone uninsured. You can sue though, and would very likely win.
Since liability insurance is mandatory the system assumes you won't be hit by anyone without insurance...
Lucky for me I had comprehensive insurance when I was t-boned by an drunk-driving, illegal immigrant without liability insurance on his "borrowed" car...
Consequently, many people deliberately give false answers during screening if they believe that there is no reason to suspect that their blood donation is puting anyone at risk.
Unfortunately, US government guidelines still require a lifetime ban on donations from men who admit to having had any sex with any man since 1976. They will gladly take the donation from a woman who has had sex with a man who has had sex with a man so long as she has not done so for at least a year.
As to the ethics, if we're using that word a synonym for morality, then you are in the clear. In my opinion, morality deals only with your contribution to the suffering of others. If you increase someone's suffering, your action is immoral. Giving a false answer to the screener at the blood mobile in an effort to reduce someone's suffering puts you in the confines of moral activity with me.
As to the blood donation question, every single unit of donated blood goes through rigorous testing to ensure it is disease free. Should a unit test positive, the blood is destroyed and the donor is informed of the test results. There is no follow up investigation.
No matter how rigorous the screening of blood donations there is always a margin of error and a chance a tainted sample couls slip through, a possibilty for which the ban on high-risk groups was put in place specifically to mitigate. By lying about being in such a group one is putting their desire to feel good about themselves for giving blood ahead of the possibility that selfish choice might endanger the lives or health of others which. Even by the absurdly reductionist definition in the above-quoted post, is a deeply unethical and immoral act.
Consequently, many people deliberately give false answers during screening if they believe that there is no reason to suspect that their blood donation is puting anyone at risk.
A lot of people with "no reason to suspect that their blood…is puting anyone at risk" have unknowingly carried and trasmitted life-threatening illness such as HIV and Hepititis. Ignorance and suposition are not good enough when other people's lives are at stake.
As to the ethics, if we're using that word a synonym for morality, then you are in the clear. In my opinion, morality deals only with your contribution to the suffering of others. If you increase someone's suffering, your action is immoral. Giving a false answer to the screener at the blood mobile in an effort to reduce someone's suffering puts you in the confines of moral activity with me.
Morality is far broader and more complex than simply harming/not harming others. Such a reduction is hoplessly naive, almost to the point of childish simplicity.
In his book, Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, Frans De Waal, a well known primatologist and philosopher, states, "the moral domain of action is Helping or (not) Hurting others." I'm inclined to agree with this assessment, considering that all moral questions can be broken down into whether or not it helps or hurts.
By lying about being in such a group one is putting their desire to feel good about themselves for giving blood ahead of the possibility that selfish choice might endanger the lives or health of others [...]
Oh hey, I think I got the topic for Ethics III: "Altruism, real or myth?"
Edit: Though that's not really an "ethics" question, but I think I want to run with the theme anyway.
According to the questionnaire there are only two risk groups who are barred from donation for more than 12 months after possible contact with HIV, HCV, Hepatitis, etc: anyone who had hepatitis after the age of 11 and any man who has had sex with another man. It is my charge that only "Ignorance and suposition" allow for this distinction. And to use this policy to deny blood donations even in times of shortage is unconscionable.
At the same time, the screenings are vital to ensuring that what blood is ultimately provided for transfusions is reliably safe. Transfusion mortality rates have dropped severly in the past five years. I could find no statistics covering viral transmission rates, but will concede that they have likely dropped as well.
The OP's scenario:
"If I get an STD test first so I'm 100% sure that I don't have HIV/AIDS, is it ethically permissable to lie to United Blood Services about my sexual history next time they have a blood drive so that I can donate?"
My answer addressed only this scenario in which the prospective donor has performed the necessary series of tests to ensure 100% certainty of non-infection. Once again, I concede that such certainty is not possible, but will not concede that the result is any less reliable just because his partners weren't women.
Thus, given that the donor is motivated to donate blood in order that his donation will benefit one to four fellow humans (and excluding the possibility that the whole point is to thumb his nose at the homophobic establishment) we are asked to weigh in on how, ethically, we view the actions.
I stated my stripped to the skeleton view of morality, that when our actions are born from the desire to reduce the suffering of others then they are morally good. I have wrestled with the idea of attaching the qualifier that the actions must also succeed, but discarded it in the end. Should the donor's blood expire in the fridge before it can be used, or accidently be allowed to warm during storage, I find no reason to then declare that it was not an act of goor morality.
Therefore I stand by my conclusion.
They are the ones collecting blood, you have no right to donate blood. It is their perogative whos blood they do or do not want to accept. Forcing your blood upon someone who does not want it is not right.
Oh TA, you're so kind.
Pick your multiple choice answer!
Door #1
... "force"? I'm a little scared of what exactly you seem to think goes on when you donate blood... do you imagine a dark little room with a single spotlight on a reclined chair, with nurses dragging in some needy patient who gasps at the harsh light, feebly protesting as they strap him or her down, putting wedges in their mouth to force it open. Then, with the nurses standing off to the side, some beefy leather daddy struts it, probably verbally abusing everyone in the room. After a moment of excitement after seeing the helpless patient, he jumps onto their chair, slitting his wrist and forcing it to their mouth. Between his moans of excitement and pleasure he can be heard shouting out "Suck it, TrebeK! Suck it hard and suck it long!"
... that's seriously creepy, TA. Keep your vampire-blood-donor-SNL skits out of my head. They're just perverted and weird and I'm not ready to handle that kind of depravity.
... that's seriously creepy, TA. Keep your vampire-blood-donor-SNL skits out of my head. They're just perverted and weird and I'm not ready to handle that kind of depravity.
I think that's about on the level of asking if the surgeon should tell the patient that they, the doctor, has herpes. It doesn't matter and is just likely to confuse the patient.
I mean seriously, the doctor will never even have skin-contact with the patient, nevertheless getting their blood on the patient.
It is highly unlikely for a transmission to occur, but it can happen. I believe there is a documented case in france of doctor to patient transmission of HIV (in the US there was also a case in Florida but that was deliberate not accidental). Hepatitis transmission from doctor to patient, in my understanding, is actually more common(www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Doctor-to-patie... www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=Articl...). It would require unusual circumstances: damaged surgical gloves, the doctor cutting him or herself during the procedure, etc. But there is always a small risk.
I agree that, "Ignorance and suposition are not good enough when other people's lives are at stake," which is why I oppose the policy that blindly dismisses every man who has engaged in any kind of sex with another man no matter how recent or with what degree of monogamy it was engaged while at the same time never attempting to filter out a woman who engaged in a bare-back gang bang within the previous hour.
…
Therefore I stand by my conclusion.
The number of women who engage in a bare-back gang bangs is vanishingly small, thus not a high-risk group, and despite not being a memeber of a high-risk group a person - such as your theroetical gangbanger - can also be turned down on an individual basis.
Until blood screening can be made 100% accurate and foolproof such a restriciton must be in place for the safety of all. If one's desire is truly to be helpful and altruistic there are many ways one can do so that do not involve lying and potentially endangering people's lives.
If one does not like a law or policy the answer is not simply to ignore at and lie, it is to work with policymakers to try to enact changes. I was part of an organization at my Univeristy seeking to block the Red Cross from holding blood drives on campus until they lifted the policy banning blood donation by gay men.
The number of women who engage in a bare-back gang bangs is vanishingly small, thus not a high-risk group, and despite not being a memeber of a high-risk group a person - such as your theroetical gangbanger - can also be turned down on an individual basis.
Until blood screening can be made 100% accurate and foolproof such a restriciton must be in place for the safety of all. If one's desire is truly to be helpful and altruistic there are many ways one can do so that do not involve lying and potentially endangering people's lives.
If one does not like a law or policy the answer is not simply to ignore at and lie, it is to work with policymakers to try to enact changes. I was part of an organization at my Univeristy seeking to block the Red Cross from holding blood drives on campus until they lifted the policy banning blood donation by gay men.
I agree with this 100%. No one is saying the rules shouldn't be refined, just that the rules were established because screening isn't 100% accurate, and a system that weeds out high risk donors improves overall safety of the blood supply. For people to decide for themselves how high risk they are, seems like a bad way to go. I believe Boraxe also pointed out, many people who are high risk, don't believe themselves to be. You may think your not infected because you were tested recently. But look at the pornography industry.They have monthly screening for all performers. But people with HIV still get through (and they have had outbreaks among performers as a result), because many people acquired HIV very shortly before the test or after it (and perhaps some received false negatives).
Until blood screening can be made 100% accurate and foolproof such a restriciton must be in place for the safety of all.
We'll see if the FDA agrees with you. They'll be holding discussions on it June 9th and 10th.
Frankly, I'll be shocked if they rescind the ban and put something more sane in it's place, but I've been wrong before.
Just like I don't want my car to be filled with water instead of gasoline because some idiot didn't take the time to make sure that the liquid was water and not gasoline.
But look at the pornography industry.They have monthly screening for all performers. But people with HIV still get through (and they have had outbreaks among performers as a result), because many people acquired HIV very shortly before the test or after it (and perhaps some received false negatives).
Monagomous long term relationships are not comparable, no matter the sexual activities that go on within that relationship, to someone that routinely trades sex for money.
Until blood screening can be made 100% accurate and foolproof such a restriciton must be in place for the safety of all. If one's desire is truly to be helpful and altruistic there are many ways one can do so that do not involve lying and potentially endangering people's lives.
If one does not like a law or policy the answer is not simply to ignore at and lie, it is to work with policymakers to try to enact changes. I was part of an organization at my Univeristy seeking to block the Red Cross from holding blood drives on campus until they lifted the policy banning blood donation by gay men.
I am glad to see that you oppose the policy to treat only gay men as dirty 366 days after possible transmission. I am confused that you also believe it must remain in place for safety reasons. As for the gang-banger, the point was that she would not be screened out, because she is only asked two sexual history questions: Has she within the last year been with a man who ever had sex with another man, and has she within the last year accepted money or drugs for sex. Men answer similar questions.
Somehow, only the man who has sex with another man is not considered clean 366 days later. The only acceptable defence of this policy would be based on evidence that viruses remain dormant inside gay men only.
Oh TA, you're so kind.
I give and I give, and never a word of appreciation from this sorry lot of ingrates. Thank you, that means alot to me.
Door #1... "force"? I'm a little scared of what exactly you seem to think goes on when you donate blood... do you imagine a dark little room with a single spotlight on a reclined chair, with nurses dragging in some needy patient who gasps at the harsh light, feebly protesting as they strap him or her down, putting wedges in their mouth to force it open. Then, with the nurses standing off to the side, some beefy leather daddy struts it, probably verbally abusing everyone in the room. After a moment of excitement after seeing the helpless patient, he jumps onto their chair, slitting his wrist and forcing it to their mouth. Between his moans of excitement and pleasure he can be heard shouting out "Suck it, TrebeK! Suck it hard and suck it long!"
... that's seriously creepy, TA. Keep your vampire-blood-donor-SNL skits out of my head. They're just perverted and weird and I'm not ready to handle that kind of depravity.
So, forcing your bodily fluids upon people who do not want them is not a moral problem so long as you feel they should take them?
Oh... neat. You almost got me to answer my own ethics question, which I've been very carefully not answering. You almost had me there.
Anyway, before I stopped myself, here's what I wrote (snipped where I got around to answering the question):
... have you read the comments section of any news article talking about the FDA possibly lifting the blood ban? There's a rather disturbing number of people out there that are more concerned with keeping **** blood out of the supply chain then about disease. People that would rather die then have their life saved because a **** decided to do the right thing and donate (presumming the FDA lifts the ban).
So if I
And that's where I stopped.
Still, you almost got me to answer the very question I've been avoiding. Good on you.
Edit: Decided to respond to this:
Interesting, but again not quite sensical in light of #2.
With this: Eh, I figured I'd already addressed the real points, and I thought the mental image was too good. Speaking of which, I think that actually inspires me. Where's my sketchbook...
But look at the pornography industry.They have monthly screening for all performers. But people with HIV still get through (and they have had outbreaks among performers as a result), because many people acquired HIV very shortly before the test or after it (and perhaps some received false negatives).
Monagomous long term relationships are not comparable, no matter the sexual activities that go on within that relationship, to someone that routinely trades sex for money.
I agree completely. But the point was to show that testing alone isn't enough, and belief that because someone has recently been tested he or she is "clear" is a dangerous assumption.
I do agree that being inside a monagomous relationship is one of the best ways to curb your risk, but know one can ever really know if they are in such a relationship. I know tons of men and women, who were 100% faithful and believed their partners were as well, only to learn their partners had engaged in high risk behavior on the side.
I agree completely. But the point was to show that testing alone isn't enough, and belief that because someone has recently been tested he or she is "clear" is a dangerous assumption.
Then you failed, since it's already known that those tests aren't effective if you engage in risky behavior after them or too recently before them.
That's a different problem entirely, and has nothing to do with the efficacy of testing.
... have you read the comments section of any news article talking about the FDA possibly lifting the blood ban? There's a rather disturbing number of people out there that are more concerned with keeping **** blood out of the supply chain then about disease. People that would rather die then have their life saved because a **** decided to do the right thing and donate (presumming the FDA lifts the ban).
So if I
Sounds to me like their are alot of people worried about your blood getting in them. Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd, retarded, whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
Changing the policy allows them to opt out if they are that worried about it. Circumventing it does not.
I agree completely. But the point was to show that testing alone isn't enough, and belief that because someone has recently been tested he or she is "clear" is a dangerous assumption.
Then you failed, since it's already known that those tests aren't effective if you engage in risky behavior after them or too recently before them.
That's a different problem entirely, and has nothing to do with the efficacy of testing.
I wasn't challenging the efficacy of testing. I was pointing out that many people have a false sense of certainty because they've recently been tested. But the efficacy of the test timing of the test. And my other point was few people can honestly tell you their own HIV status. I was just trying to support Boraxe's point: it probably isn't a good idea for individuals (such as yourself in the example you provided at the beginning of the discussion) to determine their level of risk.
Sounds to me like their are alot of people worried about your blood getting in them. Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd, retarded, whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
Changing the policy allows them to opt out if they are that worried about it. Circumventing it does not.
Screening for sexual activity will not screen out sexual orientation. Gay men can donate all of the blood they can spare and still engage in mutual manual stimulation without answering untruthfully to any of the screening questions. Gay women can engage in any activity without being screened out. Gay men who last had sex in 1976 can donate.
Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd, retarded, whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
In the case of blood transfusions? Typically not, actually. In most cases where someone needs blood they're not in any position to make medical decisions for themselves, and it's decided for them, typically not even by family (or another designated trusted fellow or lass) but by the doctors/paramedics/whatever. Throw in that they're never told about who donated the blood, and it seems very odd to suddenly think that sort of idiocy should be catered to.
Seriously though, people receiving blood transfusions don't get a choice in the matter, they aren't allowed to be picky. While they may have a right ot refuse medical treatment all together, I don't think they have any right to refuse a particular blood packet.
I was pointing out that many people have a false sense of certainty because they've recently been tested.
... and do you have any reason to believe this, or is this just conjecture?
'cause if it's conjecture, I can counterpoint nicely: people who choose to get a test (that is, not people told by a doctor to get a test in the effort to make a diagnosis) are a self-selected group. Typically, self-selected groups are more educated and better informed about the relevant material, in this case about the efficacy and weaknesses of HIV/AIDS testing. As such, I find it unlikely that someone that has chosen to get a test and received a negative result is likely to be unduly optimistic as they'll know if they acted in such a way to put the test results into question.
I was pointing out that many people have a false sense of certainty because they've recently been tested.
... and do you have any reason to believe this, or is this just conjecture?
'cause if it's conjecture, I can counterpoint nicely: people who choose to get a test (that is, not people told by a doctor to get a test in the effort to make a diagnosis) are a self-selected group. Typically, self-selected groups are more educated and better informed about the relevant material, in this case about the efficacy and weaknesses of HIV/AIDS testing. As such, I find it unlikely that someone that has chosen to get a test and received a negative result is likely to be unduly optimistic as they'll know if they acted in such a way to put the test results into question.
I don't see how that disproves my point. Sure people who decide to get tested could be, but don't have to be, more educated or concerned about STDs. But choosing to get an HIV test, doesn't automatically mean the person knows about the window, and it doesn't mean the person knows about his or her partner's activities (another critical factor). I can easily imagine someone who believes he or she is in a monogamous relationship, getting an HIV test and getting a negative result, but then being infected within the next month because the partner is engaged in risky behavior. And I can, no I have known people, who got a test, and didn't realize the test couldn't tell them anything about the encounter they had the evening before the test. I've had to explain this to people. So I know there are self testing people out there who don't have a clear picture of how it all works.
Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd, retarded, whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
In the case of blood transfusions? Typically not, actually. In most cases where someone needs blood they're not in any position to make medical decisions for themselves, and it's decided for them, typically not even by family (or another designated trusted fellow or lass) but by the doctors/paramedics/whatever. Throw in that they're never told about who donated the blood, and it seems very odd to suddenly think that sort of idiocy should be catered to.
Seriously though, people receiving blood transfusions don't get a choice in the matter, they aren't allowed to be picky. While they may have a right ot refuse medical treatment all together, I don't think they have any right to refuse a particular blood packet.
While you can't be picky about the source, you can refuse a transfussion. In fact people do it all the time out of concern for contaminated blood. I think this is what you may have been saying anyways, but wasn't 100% sure.
I don't see how that disproves my point.
Course it doesn't. Your argument is as much conjecture as mine. That was the point.
I don't see how that disproves my point.
Course it doesn't. Your argument is as much conjecture as mine. That was the point.
No, the point is, the screeners shouldn't rely on people to judge their level of risk on their own because individuals can misunderstand how tests work, how much at risk they are, etc. I agree that the screening method needs to be tweaked, but I would honestly push for a tighter screening system, rather than a looser one that allows people to determine their own level of risk.
No, the point is, the screeners shouldn't rely on people to judge their level of risk on their own
But they don't.
No, the point is, the screeners shouldn't rely on people to judge their level of risk on their own
But they don't.
I know they don't. But your argument is basically saying donors should assume they know better than the screeners and be able to judge their own level of risk and lie on the questionaire.
But your argument [...]
Where? I've been pretty careful about not answering my own question. Where did I mess up?
But your argument [...]
Where? I've been pretty careful about not answering my own question. Where did I mess up?
Escher, a person would have to be blind not to see what your position is throughout the thread.
So you admit that you're arguing against an assumption then?
Well when your dialoguing on a forum you are forced to assume things. But there are better and worse assumptions. I think from your posts, and the fact that you attack anyone who thinks it is wrong to lie on the questionaire, that one can safetly infer you are in favor (at least in your individual case) of lying in order to donate blood. So yes, I am assuming. And I make no appologies for it.
I think from your posts, and the fact that you attack anyone who thinks it is wrong to lie on the questionaire [...]
Lies.
Responded to quadibloc about the accuracy of the stats quadibloc gave.
Responded to Robin_Hoodlum1, agreeing that lying was wrong but admitting to being conflicted.
First responded to you about the accuracy of the tests and the real risk, not ethics. Most of my responses to you were about statistics, risk factors, and wondering why if something was good enough for hets it wasn't good enough for ****s.
Didn't respond to lofgren who said it was unethical to lie.
Didn't respond to Novacat who said it was unethical to lie.
Didn't respond to Boraxe who said it was unethical to lie.
And that covers the first 80 posts of the thread.
So yeah. You're wrong. You lied about me. Again.
The majority of my responses have been as to risk factors, statistics, and giving clarifications to things that there seemed to be some confusion about (like your statement that gay men had to do anal to be sexually active). I've distinctly avoided talking about the ethical issue of lying itself, to the point that I started a second thread about that issue specifically and then abstained from that conversation until it went off topic. What I have done is questioned some of the reasons people have given, when I've felt they were working off of bad or misleading info.
that one can safetly infer you are in favor (at least in your individual case) of lying in order to donate blood. So yes, I am assuming. And I make no appologies for it.
One certainly can assume that, but I'm not sure it's wise to say that's a safe assumption. What is a safe assumption is that I want to donate, that I think the ban is a predujicial ban, and that in at least some cases I think a person's idiotic concerns should be ignored, and that last part is only from my recent convo with TA.
Especially since the closest I've said about the actual ethics of it was when I agreed with Robin_Hoodlum1 back on page 1.
________
1... it felt very weird to write out Robin_Hoodlum.
I think from your posts, and the fact that you attack anyone who thinks it is wrong to lie on the questionaire [...]
Lies.
Responded to quadibloc about the accuracy of the stats quadibloc gave.
Responded to Robin_Hoodlum1, agreeing that lying was wrong but admitting to being conflicted.
First responded to you about the accuracy of the tests and the real risk, not ethics. Most of my responses to you were about statistics, risk factors, and wondering why if something was good enough for hets it wasn't good enough for ****s.
Didn't respond to lofgren who said it was unethical to lie.
Didn't respond to Novacat who said it was unethical to lie.
Didn't respond to Boraxe who said it was unethical to lie.
And that covers the first 80 posts of the thread.
So yeah. You're wrong. You lied about me. Again.
Assuming all that is correct, I didn't lie, I was merely incorrect about your position. Even so, based on the rest of your post which I haven't quoted here, it looks like your position is largely what I thought it was. You may have been conflicted about it. But you still seem to be saying, what matters is what you think about your risk factors, and not what the screener thinks. That because you feel the screening questionair is prejudiced, that in some way justifies lying. If I am wrong, feel free to tell me.
The number of women who engage in a bare-back gang bangs is vanishingly small, thus not a high-risk group, and despite not being a memeber of a high-risk group a person - such as your theroetical gangbanger - can also be turned down on an individual basis.
People donating blood are screened on an individual basis. The idea of asking if they belong to a high-risk group is somewhat absurd when the screening process could be improved by actually asking relevant questions about a person's behaviors--something that could easily entirely replace the prejudicial-by-definition group-belonging thing.
Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd[...], whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
If they do so in a way that gets lots of other innocent people killed by reducing the available amount of blood?
no!If they don't want to risk accepting blood from the "wrong" kind of people, they are certainly within their right to refuse and let other people recieve blood transfusions instead.
Something else I thought of: Earlier in the thread, EscherEnigma mentioned that lots of people define "have sex" differently. How does the Red Cross define "have sex" for the purpose of this question?
I've considered trying to donate blood and asking for a clarification when I got to this question to see if I can get through (my money's on "Probably", but I wouldn't be willing to bet very much of it), but I'm kinda very hemophobic and it just wouldn't work.
(My sister's accounts of her adventures in blood donation vary from trying to get me to try and to trying to make me physically ill. I don't think she's decided which outcome she's actually going for.)
People donating blood are screened on an individual basis. The idea of asking if they belong to a high-risk group is somewhat absurd when the screening process could be improved by actually asking relevant questions about a person's behaviors--something that could easily entirely replace the prejudicial-by-definition group-belonging thing.
Yes, but the blood screenign process is still imperfect. There is an under 1% chance of a false negative. While that might not seem like much, when your are dealing with millions of people, it means bad blood could get through. So they need a questionaire to limit how much actually does get through. I agree with you, it could be refined. But it is still going to be all in how they group it. What they will probably do is just ask if people have had anal intercourse in the past X number of years, have had more than one parnter, have had a partner they knew to be promiscuous, etc. The questionaire, in my opinion doesn't cover enough ground at the moment. They really need to get into specific behaviors.
Yes, but the blood screenign process is still imperfect. There is an under 1% chance of a false negative. While that might not seem like much, when your are dealing with millions of people, it means bad blood could get through. So they need a questionaire to limit how much actually does get through.
When I mentioned individual screening, I was actually referring to the questionaire. It asks at least one irrelevant question (as I said, I've never seen it personally for a few reasons), and doesn't bother to ask the most relevant questions.
What they will probably do is just ask if people have had anal intercourse in the past X number of years...
You keep saying that, but I don't think it's fair. Anal sex may be more likely to transmit viruses than other types of sex (and I don't think that's necessarily true just because it's the most common kind of transmission, although I'll concede that it's still likely true if people with more relevant knowledge than I think it is) but that's irrelevant. If there's a possibility that you've had partners that could have passed you a virus, you shouldn't be donating blood regardless of what type of intercourse it was; if there's not a real possibility (as you've mentioned, there's always some possibility that one's mate is a cheatin' ho', but there's no way to screen against that in any case) that you've had partners that could have passed you a virus, it's pretty safe to donate blood regardless of what type(s) of intercourse you have or have not been engaged in recently.
They really need to get into specific behaviors.
Hey, now that's a good idea!
Assuming all that is correct, I didn't lie, I was merely incorrect about your position.
About "my position"? Dude, you said I attacked everyone that thought it was wrong to lie. That's not "my position", that's verifiable history. Which didn't happen. I didn't do that, and you were wrong for saying I did.
Even so, based on the rest of your post which I haven't quoted here, it looks like your position is largely what I thought it was.
I'm sorry, but how do you jump from someone disagreeing with actual risk factors, being clear on statistics, making sure information is correct, and so-on to an ethical decision? Just like I can absolutely hate the Westboro Baptists and what they do and then turn around and say that the court was right in protecting their Freedom of Speech, I can easily think the ban is stupid biggoted garbage and then still abide by it.
I have tried to establish the facts and clarify misconceptions. I have said nothing about the ethics.
If I am wrong, feel free to tell me.
I've already said I'm not going to answer my own question.
You keep saying that, but I don't think it's fair. Anal sex may be more likely to transmit viruses than other types of sex (and I don't think that's necessarily true just because it's the most common kind of transmission, although I'll concede that it's still likely true if people with more relevant knowledge than I think it is) but that's irrelevant. If there's a possibility that you've had partners that could have passed you a virus, you shouldn't be donating blood regardless of what type of intercourse it was; if there's not a real possibility (as you've mentioned, there's always some possibility that one's mate is a cheatin' ho', but there's no way to screen against that in any case) that you've had partners that could have passed you a virus, it's pretty safe to donate blood regardless of what type(s) of intercourse you have or have not been engaged in recently.
It might not be fair, but it is a sure way to limit the risk. I've posted plenty of data on it. Even with protection, anal sex is more risky when it comes to HIV.
The problem with your second point is,for anyone who is sexually active (even married couples who believe their monogamous) there is the possibility they have been infected with a disease by their partner. You can't rule it out unless the person is celibate.
And the type of sex going on in the relationship does matter, precisely because it is an indication of the type of sexual activity going on outside the relationship if cheating is taking place.
About "my position"? Dude, you said I attacked everyone that thought it was wrong to lie. That's not "my position", that's verifiable history. Which didn't happen. I didn't do that, and you were wrong for saying I did.
And I said as much. I was incorrect. But my interest was in your position on the issue.
I'm sorry, but how do you jump from someone disagreeing with actual risk factors, being clear on statistics, making sure information is correct, and so-on to an ethical decision? Just like I can absolutely hate the Westboro Baptists and what they do and then turn around and say that the court was right in protecting their Freedom of Speech, I can easily think the ban is stupid biggoted garbage and then still abide by it.
It appeared to me that you were going after the people building a strong case for the questionaire. More than the other side. If I am wrong, and you can point to cases where you went after others, fine.
I've already said I'm not going to answer my own question.
Then I will have to continue to make assumptions about your position on the ethics.
It might not be fair, but it is a sure way to limit the risk. I've posted plenty of data on it. Even with protection, anal sex is more risky when it comes to HIV.
But there is no difference. If nobody is engaged in risky behaviors, there is no risk. If someone is, the risk is high enough that the blood should not be used.
And the type of sex going on in the relationship does matter, precisely because it is an indication of the type of sexual activity going on outside the relationship if cheating is taking place.
Buh? If someone is cheating, the blood is very likely tainted without the person's knowledge and should not be used; as there is no way to assess this risk whatsoever, the blood is then tested.
Yes, it might still slip by. Equally likely regardless of what kind of sex we're talking about here.
And oh, I do think there are more ways to be banned from donating blood for life. My youngest sister is.
She recieved a letter after she had donated blood telling her that her blood tested positive for some STD I'd never heard of. The letter noted that the blood was retested and that there were no issues with it, and that the possibility of false possitive was higher than the possibility of a true positive, so she shouldn't worry.
Also, the donated blood was destroyed and she was banned for life from ever donating again.
But my interest was in your position on the issue.
And my interest is in getting people to stop lying about me and making assumptions about my views, beliefs and history, but that's not going so well for me either.
Alas, I suppose we are both doomed.
It appeared to me that you were going after the people building a strong case for the questionaire. More than the other side. If I am wrong, and you can point to cases where you went after others, fine.
So? Again, I haven't said a thing about ethics, only about the facts. You cannot make an informed assumption of how I feel about the ethics of something based off the fact that I'm aware and educated on the facts of something.
Then I will have to continue to make assumptions about your position on the ethics.
No you don't. You can always just respond to things people have actually said, like you were doing before you decided to attack what you presume is my argument. You did it before, I have confidence you can do it again.
But that is the point. You can't know for sure what your partner is doing on the side. You may think you are in a monogamous relationship. But there is a real good chance you aren't. And in that case, the kind of sex you are engaging in matters.
But my interest was in your position on the issue.
And my interest is in getting people to stop lying about me and making assumptions about my views, beliefs and history, but that's not going so well for me either.
Alas, I suppose we are both doomed.It appeared to me that you were going after the people building a strong case for the questionaire. More than the other side. If I am wrong, and you can point to cases where you went after others, fine.
So? Again, I haven't said a thing about ethics, only about the facts. You cannot make an informed assumption of how I feel about the ethics of something based off the fact that I'm aware and educated on the facts of something.Then I will have to continue to make assumptions about your position on the ethics.
No you don't. You can always just respond to things people have actually said, like you were doing before you decided to attack what you presume is my argument. You did it before, I have confidence you can do it again.
I got tired of you clearly putting your veiw forward through selective argument over facts, and then beating people for "assuming things" about you. If you don't want me to assume things, then just be more clear about your actual position.
Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd, retarded, whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
In the case of blood transfusions? Typically not, actually. In most cases where someone needs blood they're not in any position to make medical decisions for themselves, and it's decided for them, typically not even by family (or another designated trusted fellow or lass) but by the doctors/paramedics/whatever. Throw in that they're never told about who donated the blood, and it seems very odd to suddenly think that sort of idiocy should be catered to.
Seriously though, people receiving blood transfusions don't get a choice in the matter, they aren't allowed to be picky. While they may have a right ot refuse medical treatment all together, I don't think they have any right to refuse a particular blood packet.
Correct, but they can opt ahead of time to never recieve a blood transfusion if they really care that much.
And whats odd about it? The conversation was starting to stagnate so I looked for another entertaining angle from which to approach it from.
Sounds to me like their are alot of people worried about your blood getting in them. Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd, retarded, whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
Changing the policy allows them to opt out if they are that worried about it. Circumventing it does not.
Screening for sexual activity will not screen out sexual orientation. Gay men can donate all of the blood they can spare and still engage in mutual manual stimulation without answering untruthfully to any of the screening questions. Gay women can engage in any activity without being screened out. Gay men who last had sex in 1976 can donate.
...
Drat!
But that is the point. You can't know for sure what your partner is doing on the side. You may think you are in a monogamous relationship. But there is a real good chance you aren't. And in that case, the kind of sex you are engaging in matters.
It matters because it's equally likely (namely "very un-") that bad blood will slip by?
Prejudiced, bigoted, absurd[...], whatever, is it not their right to determine what goes inside of them?
If they do so in a way that gets lots of other innocent people killed by reducing the available amount of blood?
If they don't want to risk accepting blood from the "wrong" kind of people, they are certainly within their right to refuse and let other people recieve blood transfusions instead.
But there is the rub, so to speak. The people in question are not the ones reducing the blood supply. That would be the FDA and its laws. If I buy a cake or whatever, and eat it, because the can says it is peanut free, puting peanuts in there would be wronging me. The fact that the reason I do not want to eat peanuts (They are the legume of the devil) differs from the reason that their are no peanuts in it (Some people are alergic to them) is irrelevant.
You lied to put something in me that I do not want there. You have violated me by subterfuge, which is not so diffrent from violating by force.
I never implied that the rule was not stupid or moral, we where discussing wether or not covertly circumventing it was.
I got tired of you clearly putting your veiw forward through selective argument over facts, and then beating people for "assuming things" about you.
Neat. Fatigue is now a good reason to pressume someone's position.
If you don't want me to assume things, then just be more clear about your actual position.
Hrm... no. If you want to know my ethical views, then you'll have to start your own thread and make it interesting enough for me to take part in. I set rules for myself in these threads, and I'm sticking by 'em. And that includes not engaging the ethical arguments.
I never implied that the rule was not stupid or moral, we were discussing whether or not covertly circumventing it was.
That may be the main topic, but there's certainly been some discussion of the rules themselves.
That was what I was thinking when I responded; if you were referring only to the ethics of violating the existing rules, then I'll withdraw my objection.
I'm not sure I actually agree with your reasoning, but that's precisely the problem--I'm just not sure here.
If there was an easy answer, there wouldn't be a thread.
I never implied that the rule was not stupid or moral, we were discussing whether or not covertly circumventing it was.
That may be the main topic, but there's certainly been some discussion of the rules themselves.
That was what I was thinking when I responded; if you were referring only to the ethics of violating the existing rules, then I'll withdraw my objection.
I'm not sure I actually agree with your reasoning, but that's precisely the problem--I'm just not sure here.
If there was an easy answer, there wouldn't be a thread.
True enough. But: this is a forum thread, it will not change anything, it will have very little if any effect on the world. It is an argument for arguments sake, it's only purpose to entertain thoes who participate. "Meh, I don't know" is not particularly entertaining. (well, to be fair, if that entertains you, then I apologize. I guess I should say it is not very entertaining for me and that I do not belive it will prove particularly entertaining for others.)
So, if you would, support it-oppose it-propose something else. You don't even have to really mean it!
It's like my middleschool english teacher taught me when preparing for a standardized essay test: 'The goal is not to pick the stance you agree with, but the one you can make the most compelling argument for.'
Correct, but they can opt ahead of time to never recieve a blood transfusion if they really care that much.
Well, sure, but in that case whether someone lies or not doesn't mean much. I mean, I was donating prevoiusly, that blood was still gay then. There's gay blood in that supply even if everyone tells the truth.
And whats odd about it? The conversation was starting to stagnate so I looked for another entertaining angle from which to approach it from.
Well, I think it's more odd to cater to one arbitrary bit of biggotry, but not to any others, rather then odd to suddenly bring it up.
True enough. But: this is a forum thread, it will not change anything, it will have very little if any effect on the world.
Hrm... I disagree.
Rant about the influence of forum discussions
I mean, yeah, sure, something like this isn't going to change anyone's mind that's really set in their views. But frankly if I can just educate people on the world around them and get them to consider something outside their experience, and to just think about something that normally wouldn't have crossed their mind, then I think it has merit.
Face it, how much more do you think Bane and Pig know about LGBT issues 'cause I start these discussions and share my thoughts on things? And I'm pretty sure I've even given Hater something to think about a time or two (back when the "private groups can violate the CoC" discussion was going on, my comment about defending people's right to say things I didn't like). Yeah, it's not a big change. But it's a slow, gradual shift. Influencing people, influencing thoughts, and what-not.
And ya know what? For a college student stuck in the middle of New Mexico for another seven months, I think that's kinda neat, that I can, if nothing else, get people from all over to think about this stuff. Just like talking to Green makes me more aware of issues of race, and talking with Erato or CosmicChaos gives me stuff to think about women, I like to think that my discussions give other people a new perspective on LGBT issues.
And sure, this might be kinda arrogant of me, to think that I'm having any real effect. But since when have I worried about humility?
Face it, how much more do you think Bane and Pig know about LGBT issues 'cause I start these discussions and share my thoughts on things? And I'm pretty sure I've even given Hater something to think about a time or two (back when the "private groups can violate the CoC" discussion was going on, my comment about defending people's right to say things I didn't like). Yeah, it's not a big change. But it's a slow, gradual shift. Influencing people, influencing thoughts, and what-not.
And ya know what? For a college student stuck in the middle of New Mexico for another seven months, I think that's kinda neat, that I can, if nothing else, get people from all over to think about this stuff. Just like talking to Green makes me more aware of issues of race, and talking with Erato or CosmicChaos gives me stuff to think about women, I like to think that my discussions give other people a new perspective on LGBT issues.
And sure, this might be kinda arrogant of me, to think that I'm having any real effect. But since when have I worried about humility?
Correct, but they can opt ahead of time to never recieve a blood transfusion if they really care that much.
Well, sure, but in that case whether someone lies or not doesn't mean much. I mean, I was donating prevoiusly, that blood was still gay then. There's gay blood in that supply even if everyone tells the truth.And whats odd about it? The conversation was starting to stagnate so I looked for another entertaining angle from which to approach it from.
Well, I think it's more odd to cater to one arbitrary bit of biggotry, but not to any others, rather then odd to suddenly bring it up.
A couple things I need to clear up:
As I said to pinnacle, the people who do not want it in them are not the reason it is being excluded. It is being excluded for other reasons, but that is irrelevant. They where told it did not contain something.
Homophobia: as I said to FFF "Drat!" Yes, **** blood was in the supply regardless, without any violation of the rules. Fortunatly for me my argument does not requier any specific reasoning to be sound: the homophobia is not requierd. So, lets say there are some people who think that bloodcooties have a 30 year life span, can only reproduce in the midsts of a male on male sex act, and eat midoclorians. They firmly belive that getting blood from a man who has had sex with another man in the past 30 years will destroy any opportunity for them to become Jedi. Still dosn't matter. Claims where made about what the blood contained. Changing that without telling people who would care about the change without giving them the ability to know it has been changed is wrong, especially when it results in something going into them that they do not want there.
True enough. But: this is a forum thread, it will not change anything, it will have very little if any effect on the world.
Hrm... I disagree.Rant about the influence of forum discussionsI mean, yeah, sure, something like this isn't going to change anyone's mind that's really set in their views. But frankly if I can just educate people on the world around them and get them to consider something outside their experience, and to just think about something that normally wouldn't have crossed their mind, then I think it has merit.
Face it, how much more do you think Bane and Pig know about LGBT issues 'cause I start these discussions and share my thoughts on things? And I'm pretty sure I've even given Hater something to think about a time or two (back when the "private groups can violate the CoC" discussion was going on, my comment about defending people's right to say things I didn't like). Yeah, it's not a big change. But it's a slow, gradual shift. Influencing people, influencing thoughts, and what-not.
And ya know what? For a college student stuck in the middle of New Mexico for another seven months, I think that's kinda neat, that I can, if nothing else, get people from all over to think about this stuff. Just like talking to Green makes me more aware of issues of race, and talking with Erato or CosmicChaos gives me stuff to think about women, I like to think that my discussions give other people a new perspective on LGBT issues.
And sure, this might be kinda arrogant of me, to think that I'm having any real effect. But since when have I worried about humility?
They where told it did not contain something.
Probably not, actually. I mean, yeah, everyone here has figured out by now that there's a ban on gay men donating blood, but it's not a widely known factoid.
Doesn't really change things though, as I'm still of the opinion that it's impractical to cater to silly superstitions. If there's a medical reason to stop someone from giving blood, then so be it. But the feelings of someone who doesn't want any **** blood doesn't meet the rationality standard when it comes to things to keep in mind.
True enough. I ment that it would not change the issue: we are not law makers, ect.
However most of us (that are over 18, US of A citizens, not felons, etc.) will at some influence who gets to be a lawmaker.
Still, point taken.
It is an argument for argument's sake, its only purpose to entertain thoes who participate. "Meh, I don't know" is not particularly entertaining.
That's why I didn't say it until I realized I had erroneously responded to your comment on the topic. I said a lot of things in my last few posts, I just didn't comment directly on the main topic.
'The goal is not to pick the stance you agree with, but the one you can make the most compelling argument for.'
For the purposes of demonstrating one's ability to make an argument, sure. I've done that before.
That's not really my goal here, though.
I mean, yeah, everyone here has figured out by now that there's a ban on gay men donating blood, but it's not a widely known factoid.
...It's not? I thought it was pretty much common knowledge.
...It's not? I thought it was pretty much common knowledge.
Eh, I'm speaking from my own experience so I could be wrong, but it's been my experience that many people think I'm playing with the same deck they are. Sure, most people are aware of the big items when they make the news, but there are a lot of people that really underestimate just how many cards are missing from my deck.
...It's not? I thought it was pretty much common knowledge.
+1
Besides, anyone who is worried about it can easily discover it.
And again, the ban is not for them. The ban is for supposedly medical reasons. The reason for the ban is irrelevant. My argument is not in support of the ban. It is aginst violating the ban with supterfuge.
The ban wrongs people.
Violating the ban wrongs other people.
If the ban cannot be proven neccessary from a medical perspective, keeping it is unethical.
If the ban exists, and violating it results in someone getting something in their body they do not want, when they have been informed that it would not be, then violating it is unethical.
But that is the point. You can't know for sure what your partner is doing on the side. You may think you are in a monogamous relationship. But there is a real good chance you aren't. And in that case, the kind of sex you are engaging in matters.
It matters because it's equally likely (namely "very un-") that bad blood will slip by?
I don't see how it is equally likely. There is simply a greater chance of the donor having HIV if he or she engages in anal intercourse.
I got tired of you clearly putting your veiw forward through selective argument over facts, and then beating people for "assuming things" about you.
Neat. Fatigue is now a good reason to pressume someone's position.If you don't want me to assume things, then just be more clear about your actual position.
Hrm... no. If you want to know my ethical views, then you'll have to start your own thread and make it interesting enough for me to take part in. I set rules for myself in these threads, and I'm sticking by 'em. And that includes not engaging the ethical arguments.
You are a ****ing **** sophist. Nothing more.
I won't start **** for you.
I won't start **** for you.
That is, of course, your preogative.
So, lets say there are some people who think that bloodcooties have a 30 year life span, can only reproduce in the midsts of a male on male sex act, and eat midoclorians. They firmly belive that getting blood from a man who has had sex with another man in the past 30 years will destroy any opportunity for them to become Jedi. Still dosn't matter. Claims where made about what the blood contained. Changing that without telling people who would care about the change without giving them the ability to know it has been changed is wrong, especially when it results in something going into them that they do not want there.
Assumptions:
At least one person who holds the above belief, or a similar one, which is in direct, obvious contradiction to everything we know, from decades of studies, about blood and its contents.
At least one such person lives within the blood supply area of the prospective donor, will require blood from the public supply, and requests the blood (rather than having it administered while unconscious).
The donor is aware of that possibility, but has no direct knowledge of this locational coincidence.
Is it your contention that the man in the original post is being unethical about lying to give blood, despite prior testing to ensure for non-infection, because the recipient of said blood holds to a personal fairytale concerning blood?
If so, is it unethical for a person to assure the recipient that he will not receive blood tainted in that way, (i.e. "This blood will not keep you from becoming a Jedi.") despite knowing all of the supplied blood was provided by gay men?