Leo Again

Ctrl Alt Delete

floggg wrote: »

What was to stop me from lying about that?

You would almost think it wasn't actually the safety of the blood he was concerned about, but simply those who are giving it...

The questions aren't asked for the fun and to entertain you.

IMO if you lie on that questionnaire you are no better than this lad

spikeS

floggg wrote: »

I don't see Fran getting agitated about the flimsy protection offered by the questionnaire from persons who have recently returned from malarial areas either, which was the grounds on which my blood was refused in the past.

What was to stop me from lying about that?

You would almost think it wasn't actually the safety of the blood he was concerned about, but simply those who are giving it...

I would hope people would not lie on the form, it's an awful thing to do to pass on a desiese like malarial just to feel good about giving blood.

I know the blood board work on a bit of trust but think all decent people won't lie on the form, you would have to be heartless to give blood if you where at risk, just wait the time period after the holiday then give blood

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The questions aren't asked for the fun and to entertain you.

IMO if you lie on that questionnaire you are no better than this lad

It's a serious issue, but it would take an awful lot more to make me as bad as Donal McIntyre.

And I think you really missed the point. I have never lied or never would lie on the form.

If the questionnaire can be trusted as a means to screen people who visited martial areas, why can't it be trusted to screen gay people?

spikeS

floggg wrote: »

It's a serious issue, but it would take an awful lot more to make me as bad as Donal McIntyre.

And I think you really missed the point. I have never lied or never would lie on the form.

If the questionnaire can be trusted as a means to screen people who visited martial areas, why can't it be trusted to screen gay people?

What is the screening like for hiv compared to malaria, I know little about it but is there not a dormant period where it cannot be detected by the tests?

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

At the risk of being labelled a homophobe

I'm not homophobe, but...

Still, you'd be nervous around them fellas...

Don't drop the soap!

I'm only saying, like.

Thephantomsmask

6 months for seroconversion to occur and make HIV detectable.

floggg

spikeS wrote: »

What is the screening like for hiv compared to malaria, I know little about it but is there not a dormant period where it cannot be detected by the tests?

No idea.

The point is there are lots of things on that questionnaire which can exclude you from giving blood in each case, people could lie of they choose and thus the questionnaire isn't fool proof - but then no reasonable method of screening would.

If there is a weakness in the questionnaire, it is one which is equally applicable to any of the risk groups excluded from giving blood.

However, our Fran doesn't seem to have any issue with the current blood donation procedures or questionnaire, or any apparent concern that other excluded persons could be dishonest when completing the form.

However, if lgbt people were allowed to donate blood, if even under rather restrictive conditions, then suddenly the questionnaire would be a flimsy defence and easily exploited by the big bad gays.

He can't even say it's just a concern about HIV - because lots of the other excluded donors are excluded because of HIV related risks.

spikeS

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

6 months for seroconversion to occur and make HIV detectable.

So would a change to 8 months after risky behaviour (ie. Sex with prostitute/drug use/gay male sex) be better then an outright ban.

I am also guessing gay female sex does not result in a ban atm.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

At the risk of being labelled a homophobe (as is the current trend these days for someone who says anything remotely anti gay).

The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest. The blood ban for gays has been in place for years for a good reason.

People can be tri-sexual for all I care but he is going on a very "fairy" stance since coming out on Radio between this and stating he is going to the New York paddys days gay pride parade and it is frankly unbecoming of a minister.

Actually


Never mind :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I have donated blood in the past,what have you to gain by constantly asking that question? I think you'll find that irelands policy is in line with most countries, Austria,China,France,Germany,Holland and the USA.That's of course if you trust wikipedia this time.

It's what happens in a debate, People ask questions. That's the first time you have answered it.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

At the risk of being labelled a homophobe (as is the current trend these days for someone who says anything remotely anti gay).

The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest. The blood ban for gays has been in place for years for a good reason.

People can be tri-sexual for all I care but he is going on a very "fairy" stance since coming out on Radio between this and stating he is going to the New York paddys days gay pride parade and it is frankly unbecoming of a minister.

"Fairy" stance? Lol.

This would be parade the inclusive (rather than gay pride) parade that a number of irish TDs have attended in the past, including a junior minister, as well as the New York Mayor and many senior New York politicians, and which Leo said he'd like to go but probably won't be able to.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/leo-varadkar-hopes-to-join-gay-st-patricks-day-parade-in-us-30935096.html

Lol.

As for doe whether he can take the decision or not, Ministers make decisions on matters which personally effect them every day. Their job is to make a decision on the merits, not on personal biases.

Do you think a female health minister should be barred from making any decision in relation to breast cancer services just because she has breasts herself?

bodice ripper

floggg wrote: »

Do you think a female health minister should be barred from making any decision in relation to breast cancer services just because she has breasts herself?

Once she declares her personal interest in breasts, she's grand.

floggg

bodice ripper wrote: »

Once she declares her personal interest in breasts, she's grand.

I guess a lesbian Health Minister would have some expert knowledge in the area.

circadian

I don't even know the point Fran has now, Zab completely debunked the 'statistics' from the OP. I have yet to see a response, at the minute it just looks like it's being ignored.

I personally have no issue with someone wanting to donate blood regardless of their background. It's a good thing to do and it helps a lot of people. The scaremongering rhetoric being posted by some is shocking.

There are screening methods for blood, the more people that can give the better.

Menas

circadian wrote: »

I don't even know the point Fran has now, Zab completely debunked the 'statistics' from the OP.

We cant allow the facts to get in the way of some peoples view of The Truth!

Thephantomsmask

spikeS wrote: »

So would a change to 8 months after risky behaviour (ie. Sex with prostitute/drug use/gay male sex) be better then an outright ban.

I am also guessing gay female sex does not result in a ban atm.

That would be my view alright, blanket ban for x period of time after risky behaviour regardless of sex/sexuality etc and a rigorous testing regime used.

Blanket banning one segment of society is wrong when anyone who has had an unprotected ONS could be carrying HIV is grossly unfair and the self screening forms are not a preventative method. I'm barred because I take long term prescription medicines (blanket ban regardless of type or dose of drug) which is a far better reason for a blanket ban than banning gay men who have had anal but a straight man having anal or any other unprotected sex is A-ok.

Annasopra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not homophobe, but...

Still, you'd be nervous around them fellas...

Don't drop the soap!

I'm only saying, like.

Yeah cause like every gay guy you see might rape you

jobbridge4life

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah cause like every gay guy you see might rape you

I'm guessing Zubeneschamali was being outrageous for effect, in response to CTR ALT DELETE

Zubeneschamali

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

Blanket banning one segment of society is wrong when anyone who has had an unprotected ONS could be carrying HIV is grossly unfair

I think the view of the folks in charge has been they don't give a crap about fairness to donors - the point of the blood donation service is for recipients to get blood, not for all donors to feel equally valued by society.

Excluding men who have had sex with men excludes half the new cases of HIV per year, and doesn't impact on supply much, so it's a no-brainer if you are just interested in running the service.

floggg

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the view of the folks in charge has been they don't give a crap about fairness to donors - the point of the blood donation service is for recipients to get blood, not for all donors to feel equally valued by society.

Excluding men who have had sex with men excludes half the new cases of HIV per year, and doesn't impact on supply much, so it's a no-brainer if you are just interested in running the service.

If it is a genuine and proportionate response to increased risk amongst certain groups, then I accept the reason for the ban. I would defer to any independent medical organisations view in that regard.

Personally though I feel the way it's applied is a little to arbitrary, and places too much emphasise on the gender of your sexual partners rather than the type and frequency of sex or similar factors.

I find it odd for example that a gay man in a monogamous LTR and who has tested negative for HIV is excluded for life, and yet a straight man who has had unprotected sex with a different partner everyday for a year is permitted to donate.

I realise that the rules need to be simple in nature so that there is no confusion how they are applied, but I think there should be some scope to look at behaviour rather than gender.

The_Captain

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the view of the folks in charge has been they don't give a crap about fairness to donors - the point of the blood donation service is for recipients to get blood, not for all donors to feel equally valued by society.

Excluding men who have had sex with men excludes half the new cases of HIV per year, and doesn't impact on supply much, so it's a no-brainer if you are just interested in running the service.

It's this to be fair. I don't see why people are treating this like it's a huge homophobic conspiracy when it's really just the IBTS only being concerned with the health of recipients.

Even with a 12 month ban on MSM, the chances of blood infected with HIV making it into the system increases by 66%.

Most countries have an MSM ban for health reasons, and if you're being honest, it's justified

fran17

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the view of the folks in charge has been they don't give a crap about fairness to donors - the point of the blood donation service is for recipients to get blood, not for all donors to feel equally valued by society.

Excluding men who have had sex with men excludes half the new cases of HIV per year, and doesn't impact on supply much, so it's a no-brainer if you are just interested in running the service.

Precisely,why should the IBTS give a monkeys about hurting somebodies feelings when there job is,and always should be,to keep the risk of contaminated blood in there stock to an absolute minimum.The fact of the matter is that msm is an extremely high risk activity and all research,bar none,will confirm that.This is not discrimination or homophobia,its no brainer common sense.When looked at in a calm manner and without agenda this is the only logical conclusion.
When you can guarantee that approx. 50% of all new HIV cases in a year can be restricted from the risk of slipping through the screening process by denying possibly 3% of the population access to the service,however difficult it may seem to the 3%,you should do this.To do anything else as a minister for health would be reckless,ill judged and my I say it,not in the interest of the whole of society.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Precisely,why should the IBTS give a monkeys about hurting somebodies feelings when there job is,and always should be,to keep the risk of contaminated blood in there stock to an absolute minimum.The fact of the matter is that msm is an extremely high risk activity and all research,bar none,will confirm that.This is not discrimination or homophobia,its no brainer common sense.When looked at in a calm manner and without agenda this is the only logical conclusion.
When you can guarantee that approx. 50% of all new HIV cases in a year can be restricted from the risk of slipping through the screening process by denying possibly 3% of the population access to the service,however difficult it may seem to the 3%,you should do this.To do anything else as a minister for health would be reckless,ill judged and my I say it,not in the interest of the whole of society.

Only 3% of the population are MSM? Somebody's lying on the form...

fran17

efb wrote: »

Only 3% of the population are MSM? Somebody's lying on the form...

2.7% actually.I rounded it up to avoid claims of homophobia.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

2.7% actually.I rounded it up to avoid claims of homophobia.

Where you get that from?

fran17

efb wrote: »

Where you get that from?

ESRI

efb

fran17 wrote: »

ESRI

Link

Kurtosis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest.

Really? I assume you hold a similar stance in relation to the fact Varadkar is a doctor and makes Ministerial decisions about doctors?

DeJa VooDoo

penguin88 wrote: »

Really? I assume you hold a similar stance in relation to the fact Varadkar is a doctor and makes Ministerial decisions about doctors?

Reilly is a doctor too.
What would a doctor know about running a massive, complex institution like the HSE?

Kurtosis

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Reilly is a doctor too.
What would a doctor know about running a massive, complex institution like the HSE?

I don't really get your point. Plus, running the HSE is the job of the HSE's Chief Executive, not the Minister for Health.