Why don't blood donors recieve tax benefits? Its not pay. Its benefit.

UniversalBlack

I think that if people were to receive some sort of tax benefit, the blood "donations" would increase.

We would NOT be getting paid for your blood.
We would not be getting taxed as much by the government IN RETURN for your blood.

This tax relief wouldn't attract as many high risk donors as hard cash-for-blood, and would undoubtedly result in more "donations".:D

If there were high risk donors looking for a quick buck using fake ID's,
we could tighten up our already-rigorous blood screening process.
What do you think??

norrie rugger

i think that you would get more donors if they were open at better hours. That would do it for me

anotherlostie

UniversalBlack wrote: »

I think that if people were to receive some sort of tax benefit, the blood "donations" would increase.

We would NOT be getting paid for your blood.
We would not be getting taxed as much by the government IN RETURN for your blood.

This tax relief wouldn't attract as many high risk donors as hard cash-for-blood, and would undoubtedly result in more "donations".:D

If there were high risk donors looking for a quick buck using fake ID's,
we could tighten up our already-rigorous blood screening process.
What do you think??

Where do you come up with that assertion? Are you suggesting that all high risk donors pay less tax and would gain less benefit?

jaffa20

They would get more donations if they removed the discrimination which they agree is discriminatory and allow gay people to give blood.

Spyral

+1 on the gay thing.

In addition it would help if they didn't use the lamest excuses to not take blood. The whole 'they need blood not excuses' is a farce tbh

AtomicHorror

The lame excuses are all based on risk factors. There is always a quantifiable average risk that a blood sample will go un-screened or be incorrectly screened. This is not due to incompetence but to the simple normal limits of technology and genuine human error. I don't know whether it's realistic to suggest that we "tighten" those controls. Thus, anything which might pose a risk of infection to the transfusion recipient has to be given very serious consideration. If some other "lame excuses" had been paid greater attention in the past, perhaps the Hepatitis C infections that came to light in the '90s might have been avoided.

Homosexuals have, as far as I know, an elevated risk of HIV infection and that is the main basis of the discrimination there. Whether the difference is significant enough to warrant it, I don't know. The various travel and nationality restrictions follow the same logic. They're not interested in offending people, they just don't want to kill any recipients. The risk may be low, but if it's high enough that we'd expect 1 death per decade, you can see why they'd rather offend people.

As to paying or giving benefits to donors, there's an ethical consideration there. By offering a monetary incentive, you create a selection bias in favour of those who need money rather than those who wish to be charitable. This brings some risks with it too. It's not true in all cases of course, but in some cases a person who is desperate enough for money that they'll sell their blood is also not someone whose blood you really want. The system will also encourage some people to register as donors multiple times and donate more often than is safe for them or donate when they are ill. We can put systems in place to prevent all of that nonsense or we can just remove the incentive.

AtomicHorror

norrie rugger wrote: »

i think that you would get more donors if they were open at better hours. That would do it for me

Me also. Get the blood van out more often too.

Morlar

I agree that it would be an incentive which be would unlikely to attract more high risk donors so yes I think its a good idea.

They should also have the vans out more often and better advertised. Considering the legacy of blood transfusions in Ireland its understandable for them to veer always on the side of caution.*

*Having said that the monkey question on the questionaire made me laugh.

sunnyjim

In Dublin the hours are pretty good, 9.30am til 8.30pm. That covers a large chunk of the Dublin City centre. Is it only D'Olier St that's open that late?

Tax benefits = ridiculous. You're helping people. You're not losing anything by doing it. Win win really.

jaffa20

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Homosexuals have, as far as I know, an elevated risk of HIV infection and that is the main basis of the discrimination there. Whether the difference is significant enough to warrant it, I don't know. The various travel and nationality restrictions follow the same logic. They're not interested in offending people, they just don't want to kill any recipients. The risk may be low, but if it's high enough that we'd expect 1 death per decade, you can see why they'd rather offend people.

Actually, the figures for HIV virus has dramatically increased for heterosexual sex, even higher than sex among men in recent years. There is also the worry of drug users etc etc..

A stricter screening process is needed if they want to get clean blood as restricting same sex partners doesn't make any sense if it is spread in other ways. Why don't they just limit it to people who practice safe sex? Wouldn't that be less discriminatory.

AtomicHorror

jaffa20 wrote: »

Actually, the figures for HIV virus has dramatically increased for heterosexual sex, even higher than sex among men in recent years.

Not saying you're wrong here because I don't have figures myself, but what that link says is that the incidence of HIV infection is up in heterosexual men (with a given figure) and down in homosexual men (but with no figure given). But where are you getting the idea that the rate is higher in heterosexual men than in homosexual men? I get that the overall balance is something like 65% heterosexual men to 55% "other", but the heterosexual population is something like 10 times the size of the homosexual population. So for the rates to be equal you'd need something like 90:10 ish... (assuming other meant just homosexual men, which it doesn't).

Am I missing something?

eth0_

Here in Scotland they are less discriminatory/homophobic about it.
http://www.scotblood.co.uk/whoCanDonate.asp

"If your lifestyle puts you at risk of HIV or hepatitis."

By this I presume they ask you if you are promiscuous and/or have unprotected sex.

From what i've read, HIV is now a lot more prevalent in straight people, so I think the time as come for IBTS to remove their homophobic, "no gays" rule.

AtomicHorror

eth0_ wrote: »

Here in Scotland they are less discriminatory/homophobic about it.
http://www.scotblood.co.uk/whoCanDonate.asp

"If your lifestyle puts you at risk of HIV or hepatitis."

By this I presume they ask you if you are promiscuous and/or have unprotected sex.

But aside from the more vague wording, how is it practically any different from the rules me have? We have exclusion criteria for people engaged in "risky" sexual behaviours too. By changing to a wording like this, surely all we're doing is creating ambiguity in an effort not to offend people.

eth0_ wrote: »

From what i've read, HIV is now a lot more prevalent in straight people, so I think the time as come for IBTS to remove their homophobic, "no gays" rule.

I think we need to seem some comparative rates. You may well be right, but from reading the primary literature it seems well known that the risk of contracting HIV is higher from male homosexual sex than for heterosexual sex. It's not an issue of lifestyle choice, but just of biology.

And while discrimination is discrimination, the basis of it and the requirement for it are what makes that discrimination acceptable or not. If the discrimination against homosexuals in this case is based on prejudice, then yes indeed it is very wrong. If it's based on compelling evidence then it may not be. If it's being implemented in a system which cannot practically make reliable individual judgements with no error rate and is based on good evidence, then I think it's acceptable and responsible.

I'm having a hard time finding hard numbers on the matter- so if anyone has sources that can show us one way or the other then that would really be illuminating.

jaffa20

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm having a hard time finding hard numbers on the matter- so if anyone has sources that can show us one way or the other then that would really be illuminating.

Here and Here

You'll have a hard time finding hard numbers for anything like this as there is probably a lot of people living with hiv without realising it. What was once stereotyped as gay disease needs to be seens as a disease which is transfused through blood. Blood can be transferred from one body to another not just through gay sex. So, i think the scottish system is a lot better and more specific as do you really want straight people who go out shagging what's her name again every other night give blood when they are possibly more at risk of catching it.

Because gay people are more at risk, it actually heightens their awareness of the disease and the importance of practicing safe sex and getting tested regularly.

AtomicHorror

Firstly, I absolutely agree that the notion that HIV is a "gay disease" needs to be squashed. Of course it is a disease that literally anyone can get. On to your sources.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Here

This source doesn't back up the claim that the rate of infection is higher in heterosexuals than it is in homsexuals. It says:

"In 2007, heterosexual transmission accounted for 55% of those diagnosed in the UK. However, the overall risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual sex in the UK remains relatively low."

Certainly the rate of infection is increasing in heterosexuals and as the source states, the raw number of infections in heterosexuals is higher. But we'd expect that because the heterosexual population is 10 times larger than the homosexual population.

What we're concerned about when considering risk is the rate of infection in each population. That is, how many infections there are per person in that population.

jaffa20 wrote: »

and Here

This source also does not back up the position that the rates are comparable or that the heterosexual rate of infection is higher.

"In the U.S., 31% of all new HIV infections in 2004 were transmitted through heterosexual contact and 42% of the cases were through gay sex. It's important for everyone to get serious about safe sex."

Let's do the math on both sources:

Britain: 55% heterosexual, 65% other. Let's say that half of that is homosexual (32.5%).

Let's imagine the total number of new infections in a year is a nice round number like 100. So there's 55 cases of HIV caused by heterosexual sex and about 32 caused by homosexual sex. Let's say the total population is 1 million (plucking out of thin air here). If the homosexual population comprise some 10% of that then there's 100,000 of them.

Heterosexual rate: 55 cases per 900,000 people = 0.006%
Homosexual rate: 32 cases per 100,000 people = 0.032%

So, roughly speaking the chances that a homosexual person in Britain will have HIV is five times higher than a heterosexual person.

We can do the same for the US stats. 31% heterosexual, 42% homosexual. Because the homosexual popluation is smaller, the infection rate is higher unless the raw numbers become something like 90% to 10%.

Without more evidence, these numbers amount to little more than a correlation. But we do have more evidence. We know there's a mechanism here that turns this from a correlation into a causal relationship. The higher risk of infection has a biological basis unique to male homosexuals.

This is not a reason for discrimination in most circumstances, but in a system where we can't effectively judge every donor with 100% accuracy, and in which the cost of missing a HIV infection is a death sentence for a blood recipient, it sorta seems to me like you want to exclude populations where the risk of HIV infection is higher if you can show that the risk is actually connected to the population demographic itself.

jaffa20 wrote: »

You'll have a hard time finding hard numbers for anything like this as there is probably a lot of people living with hiv without realising it.

Certainly, and I'd say homosexual generally have a much better grasp on the figure for them because they're much more aware of it and cautious of it. But all we have to go on is the evidence at hand.

jaffa20 wrote: »

What was once stereotyped as gay disease needs to be seens as a disease which is transfused through blood. Blood can be transferred from one body to another not just through gay sex.

Well, it's not just about blood but also about other bodily fluids and about certain body tissues which shed virus more or are more open to infection. But yes, the notion of it being a gay disease is not helpful.

jaffa20 wrote: »

So, i think the scottish system is a lot better and more specific as do you really want straight people who go out shagging what's her name again every other night give blood when they are possibly more at risk of catching it.

No, but I think that our system already discriminates against the promiscuous. Am I wrong about that? When I signed up I seem to recall a lot of questions about my sexual activities.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Because gay people are more at risk, it actually heightens their awareness of the disease and the importance of practicing safe sex and getting tested regularly.

I agree, they're much more responsible on average than heterosexuals. And much more careful than heterosexuals. But unfortunately the rate of infection is still much higher amongst homosexual men, from the evidence we can see right now. I'm sure it would be higher if not for their very responsible efforts, but wouldn't be foolish to ignore the fact that it is still higher?

AtomicHorror

The more I think about this the more I wonder why the IBTS don't just change the policy so that homosexual men can donate if they can show a recent negative HIV test. Since the blood is screened after donation the chance that two independent HIV tests would give a false negative must be phenomenally low.

If we're operating in an evidence vacuum (in terms of each individual member of the homosexual population) then I can see why they discriminate. For the reasons I've outlined before. But there are plenty of homosexuals in monogamous relationships who get regular HIV testing too. If someone can back that up, they're no longer an averaged member of a population because we have more data.

DrIndy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The more I think about this the more I wonder why the IBTS don't just change the policy so that homosexual men can donate if they can show a recent negative HIV test. Since the blood is screened after donation the chance that two independent HIV tests would give a false negative must be phenomenally low.

If we're operating in an evidence vacuum (in terms of each individual member of the homosexual population) then I can see why they discriminate. For the reasons I've outlined before. But there are plenty of homosexuals in monogamous relationships who get regular HIV testing too. If someone can back that up, they're no longer an averaged member of a population because we have more data.

It makes sense - BUT - the assay the second test is run on must be different to eliminate the same false positive or false negative result.

In addition to this, there is the whole issue of confidentiality..........

I do see where the issue stems from though - just because you are gay does not mean you sleep around or take risks - it is this label as well as the entire "gay donation" label which needs to be eliminated.

Blood donation MUST be protected from all possible infective sources to protect the recipients - but it could be done a lot more tactfully in my opinion.

UniversalBlack

anotherlostie wrote: »

Where do you come up with that assertion? Are you suggesting that all high risk donors pay less tax and would gain less benefit?

Nope, I'm suggesting that SOME "high-risk" people (e.g somebody who knows they have hepatitis or HIV) MAY still try to donate to receive tax benefits.

So, we should tighten up our already-rigorous screen process.

TheJeanGenie

I would think of these 'tax benefits' as a form of coercion and therefore would it not be unethical to offer something in return for someone's blood?

UniversalBlack

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

I would think of these 'tax benefits' as a form of coercion and therefore would it not be unethical to offer something in return for someone's blood?

Hi TheJeanGenie,
What do you mean by unethical?
My understanding of coercion is manipulating people to behave in an INVOLUNTARY way. Nobody would be forced to give blood....

UniversalBlack

sunnyjim wrote: »

In Dublin the hours are pretty good, 9.30am til 8.30pm. That covers a large chunk of the Dublin City centre. Is it only D'Olier St that's open that late?

Tax benefits = ridiculous. You're helping people. You're not losing anything by doing it. Win win really.

Well, you are losing a pint of blood.
Also, the tax benefit idea isn't ridiculous.
The idea is meant to encourage an INCREASE in donors.
You're helping even MORE people-both donors and recipients.
Win win win.

Thoie

There is, afaik, a monetary reward for donating blood in Ireland already. Unless things have changed, if you're a registered blood donor, and you need a transfusion, you're not charged for it. So you could consider every blood donation akin to a free insurance payment.

Tree

afaik you hve to donate a number of units to qualify for free blood these days, but it's still a pretty good deal. Espcially given the cost of red cells/platelets after processings

Lena on da wall

Morlar wrote: »

I agree that it would be an incentive which be would unlikely to attract more high risk donors so yes I think its a good idea.

They should also have the vans out more often and better advertised. Considering the legacy of blood transfusions in Ireland its understandable for them to veer always on the side of caution.*

*Having said that the monkey question on the questionaire made me laugh.

Ah me too - it's not just "handling monkeys" now - there's another question about monkey saliva. I love how every time I go in they seem to have added another question.

Mightn't get tax incentives but I sure enjoy the Time Out bars!

microgirl

Tree wrote: »

afaik you hve to donate a number of units to qualify for free blood these days, but it's still a pretty good deal. Espcially given the cost of red cells/platelets after processings

You need to be an "active donor", which means you need to have donated within the last two years. Also, you don't get the product for free, you just don't get charged the service charge. No, I have no idea what that means either

Phototoxin

while I've thanked the people for the info about the HIV/Gay thing, I do honestly wonder if it really matters. If tomorrow the IBTS said right we'll take gays would all of the homosexual community be out donating to support it?

What do you mean by unethical?
My understanding of coercion is manipulating people to behave in an INVOLUNTARY way. Nobody would be forced to give blood....

I want to give blood but I cannot anymore. So how is it fair if you get more money than me just because you can give blood and I cannot.

I also don't see how it's fair that as a type 1 diabetic I cannot donate my tasty O+ to people who need it. I'm told its for my own saftey with no further justification, personally I think its because I need to use needles regularly.

jaffa20

Phototoxin wrote: »

while I've thanked the people for the info about the HIV/Gay thing, I do honestly wonder if it really matters. If tomorrow the IBTS said right we'll take gays would all of the homosexual community be out donating to support it?



I want to give blood but I cannot anymore. So how is it fair if you get more money than me just because you can give blood and I cannot.

I also don't see how it's fair that as a type 1 diabetic I cannot donate my tasty O+ to people who need it. I'm told its for my own saftey with no further justification, personally I think its because I need to use needles regularly.

I didn't know diabetic people were excluded from giving blood. But really, money shouldn't be an encouragement to give blood, it's about helping others in need of it like donating organs.

Thoie

Phototoxin wrote: »

while I've thanked the people for the info about the HIV/Gay thing, I do honestly wonder if it really matters. If tomorrow the IBTS said right we'll take gays would all of the homosexual community be out donating to support it?

No, but from talking to friends, some would. Even if it's only 5 extra people, that's still 5 more than they had before.

The IBTS have a new(ish) feature on their website showing current reserves: http://www.ibts.ie/Current_Blood_Supply/

Bottle_of_Smoke

Phototoxin wrote: »

I also don't see how it's fair that as a type 1 diabetic I cannot donate my tasty O+ to people who need it. I'm told its for my own saftey with no further justification, personally I think its because I need to use needles regularly.

I don't think its that. The wording is anyone who "has ever injected a non-prescription drug" is banned for life. So diabetics would be fine.

People need to get over this "homophobic" discrimination. There's no ban on homosexuals, the ban is on men who have sex with men. If a straight guy works as a prostitute he's still banned. A gay man whos never had sex is not banned.

A big reason figures have been rising for heterosexuals is due to immigrants from high risk countries. I think in the last report on HIV in Ireland less than 1% of those infected were Irish men contracting through heterosexual contact, whereas Irish men contracting through homosexual contact made up over 20% of the cases.

They don't accept donations from Sub Saharan Africans, or people who lived in Sub Saharan Africa, even if they prove they're HIV negative. Nor do they allow people who've had protected intercourse with people from high risk countries. Its really not a homophobic agenda