Leo Again

efb · 25-01-2015 05:40PM

fran17 wrote: »

Its pretty simple as with any law,if you dilute it people will take advantage.Be it right or wrong that is human nature unfortunately.

People can lie now. I don't see your very flawed logic

Grumpypants · 25-01-2015 05:40PM

What happens if you get some gay blood and suddenly start wanting to wear skinny jeans?

efb · 25-01-2015 05:40PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If you have sex on a regular basis with different partners then you should get checked regularly.

I don't and I get checked

Menas · 25-01-2015 05:42PM

RGDATA! wrote: »

Fran, did you actually read the study you mentioned in your OP?

Of course not. He is pushing his anti gay agenda. He posted this in a different thread.

there is a movement on going in the u.s in particular where a growing number of men who have homosexual feelings are seeking therapy to correct these feelings.a worrying percentage of society now promotes sexual exploration and promiscuity and this is very dangerous

efb · 25-01-2015 05:43PM

A change in sexual partners I would get tested. I've never had anal sex without a condom

Lucyfur · 25-01-2015 05:46PM

MOD

If this is thread is to stay open, there will be no gay bashing or talk of who said what in another thread/forum.

fran17 · 25-01-2015 05:46PM

efb wrote: »

People can lie now. I don't see your very flawed logic

Yes they could lie now and face the full vigour of the law for that,and rightly so.With Leo's plan however it neutralizes the law completely.How do you imagine someone could prove they had anal sex 11 months or 13 months ago?

P. Breathnach · 25-01-2015 05:48PM

fran17 wrote: »

... Leo Varadkar,our gay minister for health,wishes to reduce our laws governing against this....

And what has Varadkar's sexuality got to do with this?

Kurtosis · 25-01-2015 05:54PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes they could lie now and face the full vigour of the law for that,and rightly so.With Leo's plan however it neutralizes the law completely.How do you imagine someone could prove they had anal sex 11 months or 13 months ago?

Have you ever given blood? There are already a number questions on the form which refer to things you have done in the last 12 months, none of which it is possible to police.

efb · 25-01-2015 05:55PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes they could lie now and face the full vigour of the law for that,and rightly so.With Leo's plan however it neutralizes the law completely.How do you imagine someone could prove they had anal sex 11 months or 13 months ago?

Do you not get the reason for time lapse...

conorh91 · 25-01-2015 05:57PM

Any link to that 2011 study?

What's the risk?

I mean a 0.001% chance multiplied by "500%" is just 0.005% (incidentally, "500%" is an hyperbolic term in itself; why not simply say 'five times'?)

ceadaoin. · 25-01-2015 05:57PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes they could lie now and face the full vigour of the law for that,and rightly so.With Leo's plan however it neutralizes the law completely.How do you imagine someone could prove they had anal sex 11 months or 13 months ago?

And if someone answers that they have not had anal sex at all, how do you prove they haven't?

smileyj1987 · 25-01-2015 05:58PM

fran17 wrote: »

Now that we have all taken time to get over the fact that Leo Varadkar is only 36,this story caught my attention today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0125/675441-blood-donations/

A 2011 UK statistical and epidemiological review of blood service policy concluded that the introduction of blood from sexually active gay men into the system could increase the risk of HIV contaminating the blood stock by up to 500%.Leo Varadkar,our gay minister for health,wishes to reduce our laws governing against this.Is this anything more than party pump politics?

Once you are healthy you should be able to give blood. I had jhondis when I was younger so I'm not allowed to give blood but if I could I would.

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-01-2015 05:58PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes they could lie now and face the full vigour of the law for that,and rightly so.With Leo's plan however it neutralizes the law completely.How do you imagine someone could prove they had anal sex 11 months or 13 months ago?

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

Annasopra · 25-01-2015 06:15PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Any link to that 2011 study?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Blood_Transfusion_Service

http://www.blood.co.uk/giving-blood/who-cant-give-blood/

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/policy/healthpolicy/blooddonations/statisticalevidence/

The source for the claim is wikipedia but then links back dont reference the report any more

ckeng · 25-01-2015 06:22PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The source for the claim is wikipedia but then links back dont reference the report any more

I'd imagine it's referencing these paragraphs:

Key references
1 Soldan K, Sinka K. Evaluation of the de-selection of men who have had sex with men
from blood donation in England. Vox Sanguinis, 2003, 84:265–273.

2 Germain M, Remis RS, Delage G. The risks and benefits of accepting men who have
had sex with men as blood donors. Transfusion, 2003, 43:25–33.

3 Anderson SA et al. Quantitative estimate of the risks and benefits of possible alternative
donor deferral strategies for men who have had sex with men. Transfusion, 2009,
49:1103–1114.

Summary of evidence

Two reviews in 2003 (Soldan, Germain) estimated the number of HIV positive
donations that would enter the blood supply if the permanent deferral of MSM
donors were relaxed to 12 months (Soldan, Germain) or removed altogether
(Soldan). Soldan estimated that the deferral of MSM for 12 months since
last sexual contact, or complete removal of this selection criterion, would be
expected to increase the risk of HIV-infectious donations entering the blood
supply by approximately 60% (from 0.45 to 0.75 per year) and 500% (to 2.5
per year) respectively, with an increase in non-infectious donations of less than
2%. Germain concluded that acceptance of MSM 12 months after last sexual
contact would potentially result in one HIV-contaminated unit for every 136 000
additional donations, equating to an overall increase in HIV risk of 8% against
an increase in donations of 1.3%.

fran17 · 25-01-2015 06:44PM

efb wrote: »

Do you not get the reason for time lapse...

Whats the answer to the question.As we stand now there is law to deter the contamination of our blood stock.If Leo pushes this through,to a 12 month refrain from anal sex rule,how would one prove they did not engage in this act for 12 months if they were found to be positive for HIV? What penalty could be enforced?

Annasopra · 25-01-2015 06:49PM

fran17 wrote: »

Whats the answer to the question.As we stand now there is law to deter the contamination of our blood stock.If Leo pushes this through,to a 12 month refrain from anal sex rule,how would one prove they did not engage in this act for 12 months if they were found to be positive for HIV? What penalty could be enforced?

But how could you prove even with the rule you've never had sex with a man?

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-01-2015 06:54PM

fran17 wrote: »

Whats the answer to the question.As we stand now there is law to deter the contamination of our blood stock.If Leo pushes this through,to a 12 month refrain from anal sex rule,how would one prove they did not engage in this act for 12 months if they were found to be positive for HIV? What penalty could be enforced?

Where is the evidence that people don't lie anyway? You do realize that even if you fill in the blood donor form saying you haven't had anal sex with a man/unprotected sex/tattoos or lived in the UK in the 90's they STILL check your blood anyway? Have you even donated blood before?

Nodin · 25-01-2015 07:03PM

fran17 wrote: »

Whats the answer to the question.As we stand now there is law to deter the contamination of our blood stock.If Leo pushes this through,to a 12 month refrain from anal sex rule,how would one prove they did not engage in this act for 12 months if they were found to be positive for HIV? What penalty could be enforced?

You realise that (a) gay men are not the only ones who have anal sex and (b) worldwide, aids is a heterosexual disease?

The reason Varadkar is acting regarding the ban is presumably to do with this
http://news.yahoo.com/us-lift-lifetime-ban-blood-donations-gay-men-192510074.html

FrStone · 25-01-2015 07:24PM

Why is it that there is so much misinformation about this topic on both sides of the debate?

Men who have sex with men are more likely to have HIV. That's a fact. A much larger percentage of men who have sex with men have HIV in comparison to the rest of the population. The testing process for HIV does not pick up HIV in the first six months of getting the disease. So therefore the chance of tainted blood getting through to a patient is higher if the donor is a person who has sex with men.

With the history of bad blood in this country we must work to make sure that we never infect a patient again.

However, this new proposal where you can donate if you are a man who hasn't had sex with a man in the past 12 months makes sense. If you have HIV it will be picked up in the tests as it would be older than 6 months.

B_Wayne · 25-01-2015 08:04PM

fran17 wrote: »

Yes they could lie now and face the full vigour of the law for that,and rightly so.With Leo's plan however it neutralizes the law completely.How do you imagine someone could prove they had anal sex 11 months or 13 months ago?

fran17 wrote: »

Whats the answer to the question.As we stand now there is law to deter the contamination of our blood stock.If Leo pushes this through,to a 12 month refrain from anal sex rule,how would one prove they did not engage in this act for 12 months if they were found to be positive for HIV? What penalty could be enforced?

Erm Fran, can you refer me to a case of a person donating blood and lying where they were prosecuted in Ireland? I see no issue with a gay person giving blood, you are aware of the HIV rate amongst straight people? Should straight people no longer give blood? Also you refer to increased risk of blood contamination, firstly, it is tested. Secondly, if the increased risk is outweighed by potential lives saved that makes risk worthwhile... You're a bit obsessed with the plotting gays tbh...

fran17 · 25-01-2015 09:06PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But how could you prove even with the rule you've never had sex with a man?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where is the evidence that people don't lie anyway? You do realize that even if you fill in the blood donor form saying you haven't had anal sex with a man/unprotected sex/tattoos or lived in the UK in the 90's they STILL check your blood anyway? Have you even donated blood before?

Nodin wrote: »

You realise that (a) gay men are not the only ones who have anal sex and (b) worldwide, aids is a heterosexual disease?

The reason Varadkar is acting regarding the ban is presumably to do with this
http://news.yahoo.com/us-lift-lifetime-ban-blood-donations-gay-men-192510074.html

I never said an individual could prove that they never engaged in those acts with the rule

I never said that people do not lie

I never said that heterosexual people do not contract HIV either

Maybe for homework tonight everyone should re read the topic again.If this really is all about equality and openness as we have been told repeatedly then why nobody will acknowledge that on certain issues the homosexual lifestyle shows data that is highly disproportionate in relation to the rest of society is beyond me.
I assumed my points were quite easy to digest.
Firstly,With the absolute nightmare we are all living through with our health system in these times why does our minister for health,who is gay,decide as one of his main priorities to change a law which will alter the situation for all.For the gay community,which he is part of,in a positive but merely tokenistic way and for the rest of society in a way which will create more work for an already at breaking point system and will create a sense of fear and doubt in that system.This,in my opinion, is akin to the James Reilly debacle of bumping his local clinic up the list for grant aid.Is this not merely looking after your own?
Secondly,Dress it up however you wish but the UK system concluded that the inclusion of gay men in the blood donation system could increase HIV rates by up to 500%.We all want to be politically correct and tolerant to all nowadays but is this 500% an acceptable risk to take?

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-01-2015 09:20PM

fran17 wrote: »

I never said an individual could prove that they never engaged in those acts with the rule

I never said that people do not lie

I never said that heterosexual people do not contract HIV either

Maybe for homework tonight everyone should re read the topic again.If this really is all about equality and openness as we have been told repeatedly then why nobody will acknowledge that on certain issues the homosexual lifestyle shows data that is highly disproportionate in relation to the rest of society is beyond me.
I assumed my points were quite easy to digest.
Firstly,With the absolute nightmare we are all living through with our health system in these times why does our minister for health,who is gay,decide as one of his main priorities to change a law which will alter the situation for all.For the gay community,which he is part of,in a positive but merely tokenistic way and for the rest of society in a way which will create more work for an already at breaking point system and will create a sense of fear and doubt in that system.This,in my opinion, is akin to the James Reilly debacle of bumping his local clinic up the list for grant aid.Is this not merely looking after your own?
Secondly,Dress it up however you wish but the UK system concluded that the inclusion of gay men in the blood donation system could increase HIV rates by up to 500%.We all want to be politically correct and tolerant to all nowadays but is this 500% an acceptable risk to take?

Have you ever donated blood? Because if the answer is yes then you would know that your hysterical ranting is baseless.

Amirani · 25-01-2015 09:22PM

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe for homework tonight everyone should re read the topic again.If this really is all about equality and openness as we have been told repeatedly then why nobody will acknowledge that on certain issues the homosexual lifestyle shows data that is highly disproportionate in relation to the rest of society is beyond me.
I assumed my points were quite easy to digest.
Firstly,With the absolute nightmare we are all living through with our health system in these times why does our minister for health,who is gay,decide as one of his main priorities to change a law which will alter the situation for all.For the gay community,which he is part of,in a positive but merely tokenistic way and for the rest of society in a way which will create more work for an already at breaking point system and will create a sense of fear and doubt in that system.This,in my opinion, is akin to the James Reilly debacle of bumping his local clinic up the list for grant aid.Is this not merely looking after your own?

Fecking hell dude, try to have a little bit of cop on.

Secondly,Dress it up however you wish but the UK system concluded that the inclusion of gay men in the blood donation system could increase HIV rates by up to 500%.We all want to be politically correct and tolerant to all nowadays but is this 500% an acceptable risk to take?

It's already been pointed out to you by a few people, the 500% figure means absolutely nothing because:

1. 500% isn't the figure when the 1 year waiting period is factored in.
2. A % increase is absolutely useless without more information. If currently 1 in 1 billion get infected, and the risk increases to 5 in 5 billion, it's not really a big concern is it?

Nodin · 25-01-2015 09:25PM

fran17 wrote: »

I never said an individual could prove that they never engaged in those acts with the rule

I never said that people do not lie

I never said that heterosexual people do not contract HIV either

Maybe for homework tonight everyone should re read the topic again.If this really is all about equality and openness as we have been told repeatedly then why nobody will acknowledge that on certain issues the homosexual lifestyle shows data that is highly disproportionate in relation to the rest of society is beyond me.
I assumed my points were quite easy to digest.
Firstly,With the absolute nightmare we are all living through with our health system in these times why does our minister for health,who is gay,decide as one of his main priorities to change a law which will alter the situation for all.For the gay community,which he is part of,in a positive but merely tokenistic way and for the rest of society in a way which will create more work for an already at breaking point system and will create a sense of fear and doubt in that system.This,in my opinion, is akin to the James Reilly debacle of bumping his local clinic up the list for grant aid.Is this not merely looking after your own?
Secondly,Dress it up however you wish but the UK system concluded that the inclusion of gay men in the blood donation system could increase HIV rates by up to 500%.We all want to be politically correct and tolerant to all nowadays but is this 500% an acceptable risk to take?

I've shown you article with regards the US which is undoubtedly whats behind Varadkars notion. I'd suggest taking that on board and ditching the gay conspiracy theory.

Venus In Furs · 25-01-2015 09:30PM

FrStone wrote: »

Why is it that there is so much misinformation about this topic on both sides of the debate?

Men who have sex with men are more likely to have HIV. That's a fact. A much larger percentage of men who have sex with men have HIV in comparison to the rest of the population. The testing process for HIV does not pick up HIV in the first six months of getting the disease. So therefore the chance of tainted blood getting through to a patient is higher if the donor is a person who has sex with men.

With the history of bad blood in this country we must work to make sure that we never infect a patient again.

However, this new proposal where you can donate if you are a man who hasn't had sex with a man in the past 12 months makes sense. If you have HIV it will be picked up in the tests as it would be older than 6 months.

Read the above Fran.

B_Wayne · 25-01-2015 11:56PM

Also, James Reilly recommended for it to be considered at the end of his time as Minister. So it's as if Varadkar randomly came up with it.

floggg · 26-01-2015 12:35AM

Fran, as an estimate, how much time each day do you reckon you spend thinking about gay people?

WoolyJumper · 26-01-2015 12:45AM

Grumpypants wrote: »

What happens if you get some gay blood and suddenly start wanting to wear skinny jeans?

That's hipster blood your thinking of...

Leo Again

Comments