Leo Again

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Has it actually been afforded a position of 'high priority' though? A report is under way, the findings of which will be presented to the minister who will make a decision in conjunction with department officials and advisers. He mentioned in passing on a radio show that a decision was coming up and he didn't want to be accused of having secret/ulterior motivations for it.

Mentioned in passing ?,

yet we know the report is with the minister,
there are three options,
what those options are,
and Leo's preferred option.

Seems the decision making is a bit more advanced for something you are keen to believe is not a high priority ?

Kurtosis

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Has it actually been afforded a position of 'high priority' though? A report is under way, the findings of which will be presented to the minister who will make a decision in conjunction with department officials and advisers. He mentioned in passing on a radio show that a decision was coming up and he didn't want to be accused of having secret/ulterior motivations for it.

Actually the report from the IBTS has already been completed it appears

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0110/671728-blood-donation/

Flem31 wrote: »

Leo raised this as one of the first decisions he needs to make .....one week after announcing he was gay, so Leo himself created the link.

Flem31 wrote: »

Regarding his sexuality, I have said before and I will say it again, I don't care what he does in the privacy of his own home. Leo being gay, I don't care.
But to raise blood donations within one week of coming out was a daft thing to do, there was no need to do it. After all he didn't actually make a decision, just said he was going to do so, sometime.

This issue was already in the public domain before he made public he was gay, he cited that as one of the reasons for the timing of his coming out. The news linked above is from January 10th.

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

Mentioned in passing ?,

yet we know the report is with the minister,
there are three options,
what those options are,
and Leo's preferred option.

Seems the decision making is a bit more advanced for something you are keen to believe is not a high priority ?

I'm not keen I just don't know.

downonthefarm

Leona varadker plumbing for the gay vote.
I think I'd prefer to bleed out thank you.
No offence to any gay people out there

jobbridge4life

downonthefarm wrote: »

Leona varadker plumbing for the gay vote.
I think I'd prefer to bleed out thank you.
No offence to any gay people out there

Oh none taken I mean how could anyone be offended by you saying you'd rather perish than receive a donation from one of us?

Flem31

penguin88 wrote: »

Actually the report from the IBTS has already been completed it appears

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0110/671728-blood-donation/





This issue was already in the public domain before he made public he was gay, he cited that as one of the reasons for the timing of his coming out. The news linked above is from January 10th.

A report that wasn't even published on the 10th January and within two weeks we know there are three options and the Minister's preferred option.
This is certainly moving quickly

Kurtosis

Flem31 wrote: »

A report that wasn't even published on the 10th January and within two weeks we know there are three options and the Minister's preferred option.
This is certainly moving quickly

The report has not been published publicly (which is still the case I believe) and was completed at some point before January 10th. As of now, those are the facts. If you want to twist things to suit your narrative, that's your prerogative.

efb

downonthefarm wrote: »

Leona varadker plumbing for the gay vote.
I think I'd prefer to bleed out thank you.
No offence to any gay people out there

I'd rather give me blood to someone deserving

Flem31

penguin88 wrote: »

The report has not been published publicly (which is still the case I believe) and was completed at some point before January 10th. As of now, those are the facts. If you want to twist things to suit your narrative, that's your prerogative.

I don't twist and no need to if it's in the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-may-be-relaxed-varadkar-1.2078804

There are 3 options and Leo has a preferred choice

Kurtosis

Flem31 wrote: »

I don't twist and no need to if it's in the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-may-be-relaxed-varadkar-1.2078804

There are 3 options and Leo has a preferred choice

Not what I was referring to. The report has still not been published in the public domain, we do not know when it was completed by the IBTS and delivered to the Department of Health for consideration so any comment on the speed of progress with this is at best speculative and at worst misleading.

B_Wayne

Well in relation to priorities, anyone who has ever given or received blood should be aware that there's constant shortages so allowing another group to give blood is beneficial overall.

Annasopra

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Which he is required to do as a public representative and good to see.

But having declared that interest we now under Irish Standards in Public Office policy has to set out how he mitigates that conflict of interest.

What policy?

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

I don't twist and no need to if it's in the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-may-be-relaxed-varadkar-1.2078804

There are 3 options and Leo has a preferred choice

You certainly seem to be tripping up over yourself to try and argue he is giving this undue attention.

All we know was that this was an issue which arose during his predecessors tenure, he received a completed report on it before he made any annoucement on his sexuality, and cited the report as a reason for coming out (and not vice versa).

There is no reason to conclude he has inappropriately expedited the matter, and any arguemnt to the contrary seems to be based solely on the fact he is gay - which is something you are at pains to argue is a non-issue for you.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

So care to link to the threads you started about Mary Harney taking decisions on women's health issues then?

I don't think I was actually a member of this forum for the vast majority of Mary Harney's tenure,but if I do start a thread look for it in history.
Now now floggg we all know that to begin answering off topic and deliberately obtuse questions like this one would lead me up the garden path just as planned so lets stick with the topic ok.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

You certainly seem to be tripping up over yourself to try and argue he is giving this undue attention.

All we know was that this was an issue which arose during his predecessors tenure, he received a completed report on it before he made any annoucement on his sexuality, and cited the report as a reason for coming out (and not vice versa).

There is no reason to conclude he has inappropriately expedited the matter, and any arguemnt to the contrary seems to be based solely on the fact he is gay - which is something you are at pains to argue is a non-issue for you.

And it is in the news again today.
For something that is not receiving any special attention, it does crop up rather frequently in a short period of time.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

And it is in the news again today.
For something that is not receiving any special attention, it does crop up rather frequently in a short period of time.

Link?

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

I don't think I was actually a member of this forum for the vast majority of Mary Harney's tenure,but if I do start a thread look for it in history.
Now now floggg we all know that to begin answering off topic and deliberately obtuse questions like this one would lead me up the garden path just as planned so lets stick with the topic ok.

Obtuse questions? I think it's a directly comparable situation.

As is my example re Joan Burton making decisions relating to adoption.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

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.

Ok back to topic then.You use the term "if" it is a genuine response from the IBTS,so implying you don't feel it is 100% genuine.What do you feel may be there alternative motives in this situation?

Kurtosis

Flem31 wrote: »

And it is in the news again today.
For something that is not receiving any special attention, it does crop up rather frequently in a short period of time.

So now we've had:

He shouldn't have announced it so soon after coming out.
Things are moving very fast with the decision.
The media are reporting on it too frequently.

If you're so concerned about other priorities in the health service, why not post about them rather than bringing up such trivial (and mainly false) points? Or some substantive critiques of this policy.

fran17

Flem31 wrote: »

And it is in the news again today.
For something that is not receiving any special attention, it does crop up rather frequently in a short period of time.

Yes its featuring rather prominently in the news again today,radio and television.Maybe somebody should tell Leo and the media that we have 600 plus patients waiting on trollies in our hospitals,of all sexual persuasions.

Ghost Buster

fran17 wrote: »

Yes its featuring rather prominently in the news again today,radio and television.Maybe somebody should tell Leo and the media that we have 600 plus patients waiting on trollies in our hospitals,of all sexual persuasions.

So the guy who started a thread on the subject thinks its getting too much attention?

Kurtosis

fran17 wrote: »

Yes its featuring rather prominently in the news again today,radio and television.Maybe somebody should tell Leo and the media that we have 600 plus patients waiting on trollies in our hospitals,of all sexual persuasions.

Also, the trolley situation has been resolved (for now at least), numbers have been down in the 100's and 200's the last two weeks.

More false claims. Great to be having such an informed debate!

fran17

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So the guy who started a thread on the subject thinks its getting too much attention?

That may hold water if my thread was about the level of attention this subject was receiving but,unfortunately for you,its not.

Kurtosis

fran17 wrote: »

That may hold water if my thread was about the level of attention this subject was receiving but,unfortunately for you,its not.

At least you're doing your best to help publicise it.

fran17

penguin88 wrote: »

Also, the trolley situation has been resolved (for now at least), numbers have been down in the 100's and 200's the last two weeks.

More false claims. Great to be having such an informed debate!

Personally speaking if one is left waiting on a trolley its too much.But,as you say,200 plus are waiting on trolleys tonight so its a shameful reflection on the system from the top down.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Personally speaking if one is left waiting on a trolley its too much.But,as you say,200 plus are waiting on trollies tonight so its a shameful reflection on the system from the top down.

It's better than it was

Kurtosis

fran17 wrote: »

Personally speaking if one is left waiting on a trolley its too much.But,as you say,200 plus are waiting on trolleys tonight so its a shameful reflection on the system from the top down.

Agree the numbers on trolleys are a symptom of systemic problems with the whole health service, which means unfortunately there's no easy fix.

I would disagree that there should be zero on trolleys, it would not be cost-effective to have capacity across all hospitals for all potential A&E visits.

Sorry for the off topic posting, this is probably discussion for a different thread.

RDM_83 again

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What about people who got tattoo's or lived in the UK in 80's?

Ironically yes actually I can't give blood in the ROI because I grew up in NI well I couldn't when I tried back in the 2000's.
If they are going to remove the restriction talked about it does smack of a political maneuver when the other blanket restrictions remain in place.
These are public health concerns I don't think they are in place because I'm an inferior person because of where I lived, its because a blanket restriction is the safest option in terms of public health*.

* and also presumably because irish blood services is very sensitive after its catastrophic failures in the past

fran17

efb wrote: »

It's better than it was

Unless its your family member or relative on the trolley.You must agree that this is a far greater issue that needs tackling?Like I've been saying all along Leo Varadkar is an honest guy so why he would be pushing the blood donation ban as a pressing matter is beyond me.I believe the man is under extraordinary pressure from lgbt lobbies to rectify,what they see as a wrong,in his opinion on gay adoption.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Unless its your family member or relative on the trolley.You must agree that this is a far greater issue that needs tackling?Like I've been saying all along Leo Varadkar is an honest guy so why he would be pushing the blood donation ban as a pressing matter is beyond me.I believe the man is under extraordinary pressure from lgbt lobbies to rectify,what they see as a wrong,in his opinion on gay adoption.

listen, more money is being spent on trolley issue that the blood issue, but a lot of those people on trollies need blood, get it???

You have honed in on this, spread mistruths, got your statistics completely wrong, and still won't let up!