Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

A small number? The rate of infection shows it is not a small number of gays and that is why the policy is sound. Now you are making up numbers as you go to tr and prove your point. So how are you going to improve screening, have an AIDS list so that people who have AIDS ar named so that people can check out the list to see if people are on the list? That certainly sounds like a good policy. The problem is that the fact back up the governments position and not yours. You have tried to argue without the fact to try and change the situation into something that never can be in your favour.
 
Regardless of how many gays have HIV it would still make a lot more sense to base this on someone's sexual history as well as safer since straight people could be engaging in risky sexual behavior as well.
Of course, it would. But blatantly discriminating against all people who might engage in sex with someone who has HIV would mean that only people who abstain completely from sex could give blood. That now represents a tiny percentage of adult Americans.

There are many physicians and blood centers that would support this policy as well.
I don't know about blood centers since they must comply with the laws. And some of them who pay their donors go far beyond the current requirements, which was actually the original topic of this thread. Merely acting effeminate is reason enough for some of them to discriminate.

But most physicians and medical ethics experts do indeed find great fault with the existing system. Our own resident MD, Nanocyborasm, has posted on this matter himself more than once. It is clearly discriminatory and homophobic.

It would be quite simple to greatly reduce the number of people in the US who have HIV. All that is required is switching from abstinence-only sex education programs in the incredibly backward states where that is still the only option, as well as fixing those that are inadequate which most clearly are. The problem would be virtually eliminated by using condoms whenever it is not positively known if the partner was HIV-free. Legalizing prostitution, requiring them to use condoms, and mandating HIV testing for all prostitutes would virtually eliminate that source, as it has in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Free hypodermic needles could be provided to all IV drug users since they are incredibly cheap. And free condoms could be handed out in every public junior high school and high school to those who wanted them. The only thing missing is the will to actually fix the problem instead of blaming its victims.

The US lags behind many other advanced countries in this regard, as usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

800px-People_living_with_HIV_AIDS_world_map.PNG


800px-HIV_Epidem.png
 
A small number? The rate of infection shows it is not a small number of gays and that is why the policy is sound. Now you are making up numbers as you go to tr and prove your point. So how are you going to improve screening, have an AIDS list so that people who have AIDS ar named so that people can check out the list to see if people are on the list? That certainly sounds like a good policy. The problem is that the fact back up the governments position and not yours. You have tried to argue without the fact to try and change the situation into something that never can be in your favour.

This is what I was talking about, however it's specifically about the UK, not the USA so perhaps the numbers would be a bit different in the USA.

The committee report offers a good illustration of how to get that kind of information. It cites data from the 2000 U.K. National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, known as NATSAL. That survey found that 45 percent of MSM had never had genital contact with more than one male partner. Three-quarters of these single-partner men had never had anal sex; more than 60 percent had no sexual contact with men in the last year. Among men who'd had sex with men in the previous year, 40 percent had only one partner during that time, 22 percent had no activity with a partner in the last four weeks, and only 40 percent had activity with a new partner during the last four weeks. NATSAL found that the median number of partners reported by MSM in the previous year was two, but the mean was eight. That's a huge gap. It means that a minority of gay men are intensely promiscuous, and they're inflating the average risk data for the majority who aren't.
 
I can only work with what I know from my country.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/hiv-rate-rising-but-other-infections-less-common-20101018-16qxf.html
AUSTRALIA has reported its highest number of new HIV infections in almost 20 years, but cases of infectious syphilis, gonorrhoea and hepatitis have dropped, leading experts to conclude the safe sex message is getting through.

About 1050 new cases of HIV were reported last year, a level not reached since 1993. The numbers had remained relatively stable for four years, giving researchers hope that the disease was being restrained.

''There will always be people who have missed the key message, or don't remember the awful days when all their friends died, but the majority of people have embraced [safe sex],'' said Edwina Wright, the vice-president of the Australasian Society of HIV Medicine.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''It's not complacency. People have made a huge effort.''

Two-thirds of new cases were in men who had sex with men but a growing number of those diagnosed were heterosexual men and women, predominantly from countries where the disease is rife.

''The reality is the figures have plateaued,'' Dr Wright said. ''Of course, we'd like to see only 500 people or less being diagnosed each year, but it is clear the education campaigns have worked.''

David Wilson, from the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, agreed, saying HIV research and education campaigns had been victims of their own success.

''We can help people live relatively normal life expectancies if they stick to a drug regime, but that means they are around to spread the virus to others for decades.''

He said the success of anti-retroviral drugs could also have made the disease less frightening to younger men.

''It is still a life-altering diagnoses but it is not the death sentence it once was, if it is treated, so perhaps people are not as fearful.''

Dr Wilson said condom use had dropped but more men were choosing to disclose their HIV status to potential partners, up from 50 per cent of HIV-positive men 10 years ago to 62 per cent last year. About a quarter of gay men reported having unprotected sex with casual partners.

New chlamydia infections were still soaring, however, with 62,000 cases reported last year, up 4 per cent from 2008. Teenagers and people in their 20s were driving the epidemic, and many were probably unaware they had the disease, he said.

''Only 25 per cent of people [with chlamydia] have symptoms, so we really don't know how many people out there have it.''

Associate Professor Wilson said the HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexually Transmissible Infections in Australia Annual Surveillance Report 2010, which will be presented at a conference in Sydney tomorrow, also showed that rates of syphilis, which had been rife about five years ago, had stabilised.

Hepatitis B infections had also stabilised and hepatitis C cases had dropped, he said.

''But about 5 per cent of those with hepatitis B and 28 per cent of those with hepatitis C require liver transplants and every one of those costs taxpayers abut $120,000, so it's a huge health and economic burden.''
So you can see that it is by far the biggest group in Australia with AIDS is the MSM category. Their is a reason why the overall rate in Australia so low, is that the male homosexuality group is so low and those in the wider community generally they don't practice risky sex. There are more reason as to why you can't give blood, beside your action, but we are removing a group that is at the highest end of the scale.
 
If you look at what I posted above it's not saying that MSM isn't the highest, it's saying a minority of promiscuous gay men is inflating the average.

In the USA the number of gay men with HIV/AIDS dropped until around the year 2000 when it started to rise and it's not really known why that happened. I'm thinking maybe the younger generation of gays didn't personally deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 80s and didn't have friends who died besides the fact that people live longer with HIV/AIDS than before so some people may not see it as the danger that it is.
 
So now your're the one going to argue promiscuity?

Ironic.

As to the number starting to rise in 2000, I can tell you exactly why the number started going up. 2000 was then they started talking about an HIV vaccine and a cure for AIDs. There was a BBC story on this in the mid-2000s that broke the story that the number of infections were rising because gay men were anticipating a vaccine or cure for HIV/AIDs and felt justified in taking more risk in their sexual behavior in anticipation of said vaccine/cure. If I have time later I might try and find that BBC article.
 
I never meant to suggest that HIV isn't high among gay men but that it wasn't an excuse to discriminate against all of them.

I'm pretty skeptical that this is the cause of the number rising. I mean this is one BBC story, how many people even heard it? It could be a factor but I think the things I mentioned above really make more sense. When you're actually with someone who's dying from AIDS that would probably influence your sexual behavior a lot. I've only met one person in my life who I knew had AIDS and he was pretty healthy so for my generation it's different.
 
I never meant to suggest that HIV isn't high among gay men but that it wasn't an excuse to discriminate against all of them.

I'd say that depends on how much higher the actual rate is. There is indeed a limit where the idea of such discrimination actually makes a lot of sense.

If the rate was only just a little higher, i'd agree with you. 44 times as high? Nope.

I'm pretty skeptical that this is the cause of the number rising. I mean this is one BBC story, how many people even heard it?

You dont think gay men keep up to date on news stories about possible/potential HIV/AIDs vaccines? And I said the BBC story was the only one I saw about it - there could be other stories in regards to it as well.
 
I don't think most gay men are that dumb that they would see a story about a potential cure for HIV and then just throw caution to the wind and start bucking around bareback.

I've given my piece about the first part of your post and I won't rehash it.
 
I don't think most gay men are that dumb that they would see a story about a potential cure for HIV and then just throw caution to the wind and start bucking around bareback.

I've given my piece about the first part of your post and I won't rehash it.

Most probably arent and I never even would imply most. But as you have already pointed out it doesnt take most to cause a significant rise in HIV/AIDs rates either.

Perhaps those promiscuous young men you were blaming earlier might react like that you think?
 
I think it's very unlikely that one news story would cause this and there's really nothing to prove that it is. There are probably many factors.
 
I think it's very unlikely that one news story would cause this and there's really nothing to prove that it is. There are probably many factors.

Why do you make the assumption it was only one story? :confused:

Secondly, why would you discount it simply out of hand?

I never said it was the only factor, just a factor. :rolleyes:
 
Because it's one news story, I mean other people may have reported it but it's one event isn't it? It just seems pretty unlikely.
 
Because it's one news story, I mean other people may have reported it but it's one event isn't it? It just seems pretty unlikely.

No, its not one event. Talks and reports of a possible HIV/AIDs vaccine have been ongoing for almost a decade now and still ongoing.

It was never one event.
 
What you mentioned earlier was this one news story in the year 2000.

Actually, I found a whole list of storys from the BBC on this by searching 'BBC HIV Complacency' ...so there is definitely more than one news story in regards to this theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1628354.stm

There was concern that advances in treatment had led to a creeping sense of complacency - even though numbers of HIV cases are still rising.

Some non-BBC stories turned up as well, like this one for example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7149918.ece

There’s a scene in Jonathan Harvey’s play, Canary, in which two gay men — one young, one middle-aged — are about to have sex with each other for the first time. The younger one announces that he is into “BB” — barebacked sex or sex without a condom. His older conquest is appalled. “What if I’m HIV?” he demands. The younger man shrugs. “So what if you do give me something?” he replies. “I’ll just take pills.”

Of all the scenes in Harvey’s acclaimed drama about homosexual experience over the past five decades this one is attracting the most attention. This is because it epitomises an issue worrying many people within the gay community — a new complacency about HIV.

Many older gay men now believe that some younger ones are blasé, even reckless about contracting HIV. There’s a significant minority, they believe, who regards it as no more serious than any other sexually-transmitted disease, comforted by the availability of powerful anti-retroviral drugs and the message that it’s now a “manageable illness”.

There are even claims of some men knowingly exposing themselves to the virus thinking it “no big deal”. Critics say that health campaigners have been so concerned to destigmatise HIV that they have softened its image.

Does the fact that there was a play actually referring to it move it out of the realm of a 'single instance' enough for you? :lol:

To be honest, you shouldnt argue against this theory that much since it does kinda tie in with your own in regarding deaths perceived by HIV/AIDs.
 
That has to do with treatment for HIV, not a cure.

Essentially the same premise; apathy based upon potential treatments. Or do you really want to argue that level of semantics about my point?
 
Back
Top Bottom