|
|
|
|
OK, lets clear up some basic stuff. The procedural stuff applies only in the UK.
Cossie said:
> First, if ALL blood is adequately screened for the HIV virus, why would any restriction at all be required? The presumption must be that either -
> (a) not all blood is so screened, or
> (b) the screening is not sufficiently reliable, or
> (c) the cost of fully-reliable screening is prohibitive.
None of this is exactly the case. We cannot screen for HIV (there is no test for the actual virus) - what we test for is antibodies against the virus. There is a period known as the "window" after someone is infected with the virus, before the "seroconversion" when the antibodies become detectable. During this period the NBS can't detect that someone has the virus - that's why HIV tests should only be taken as definitively negative if tested at least twice, three months apart, after any sexual encounter.
As I understand it, the NBS dos not test an individuals blood. It mixes whole heaps of blood together, and tests the mix. If there has been one person with a blood-borne infection (HIV, hepatitis, etc) in the batch, the batch is discarded or specially treated, depending on the disease.
As regards "fully-reliable", the argument of the NBS doesn't seem to be about reliability of HIV & hepatitis screening. The current last gasp of (IMO) homophobia is to assert that gay men indulge in activities that have a higher-risk of the transmission of blood-borne infections, and that any new blood-transmissible infections are therefore first going to reach epidemic proportion in the promiscuous gay community before they are identified, so the best precaution is to ban any man who has sex with a man.
The flaw in this argument is that on average male-male sex is not that much more of an efficient transmission route than male-female sex: the key point is "promiscuity".
Now let's take a worked example of how absurd the current rules are (not mine - a copy-and-paste job, I'm afraid!).
Consider Andrew, Bob and Carol.
20 years ago at uni Andrew and Bob experiment one night. It's a one off. A year later, Bob and Carol go out for a few months, Andrew remaining celibate (for the rest of his life). At that point, none of them can donate blood.
Bob and Carol break up. Fast forward a year and a day. Andrew still cannot give blood (ever). Bob cannot give blood ever. Carol, however, can. Still claiming it is not discriminatory?
Now fast forward 20 years. Andrew, still celibate, is still under a life-ban from donating. Carol, who married David 10 years ago, is still perfectly able to give blood. David, who behind Carol's back sleeps with a different woman every Saturday night, is also fully free to give blood.
Still claim it is not discriminatory?
Then explain why Andrew and Bob may not give blood yet Carol and David can.
The NBS needs to assess on RISK. But it's sloppy and offensive to use such blunt categories as they do - and clearly homophobic in that same-sex relationships are treated differently from opposite-sex ones. All that those of us who have been fighting the NBS on this issue for the past decade are asking is that gay and straight activities should be treated equally.
Oh, and actually, that a bit more tact and care is used in telling people they can't donate - some workplaces "encourage" all staff to volunteer, and at least one gay person has been put in a very difficult position with colleagues because of the gross indifference to donors privacy that NBS staff practice.
I have had considerable dealings with the NBS over the past fifteen years: the Town Halls and other public buildings I've been responsible for have often been used for blood donor sessions. I must have dealt with a couple of hundred sessions, at least. I can unhesitatingly assert that the institutional ethos of the NBS is roughly that "we are doing good work, we have the moral upper hand, so we're going to do exactly what want and not listen to anyone 'cos we're angels so 'nyyahh' to the rest of you". This attitude used to be very common among charities, but unless they are state-run charities like the NBS has now almost disappeared: I wish the NBS would also join the rest of us in the current millenium!
(and takes deep breath. rant over. )
editd for spelling!
[Updated on: Fri, 01 December 2006 14:10]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The (American) Red Cross along with the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) and America’s Blood Centres (ABC) is pushing for guidelines that treat donors equally.
A copy of the statement dated March 2006 can be found at
http://americasblood.org/download/releases/stmnt_060309_deferrals-msm.pdf
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EU legislation (European Blood Directive) allows various European blood collection agencies to refuse to accept blood from groups of people they deem to be “High Risk”. In the UK, a high risk group includes any man who has had sex with a man. Despite being subject to the same directive, strangely other EU countries don’t have a ban on gay and bi men! In Spain for example, gay and bi men who practise safe sex are allowed to give blood. In Italy, a Milanese hospital was told by then Italian Health Minister Francesco Storace that they were breaching Italian law by refusing to let gay men give blood, ordering the hospital to change its practices “eliminating all reference to homosexuality as a screening factor”.
Dr William Murphy the National Medical Director of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service said in the Irish Times that “Only a small minority of homosexual men are at risk; the notion that all gay men are uniformly at risk is as offensive as a similar statement would be for exclusively heterosexual men” he continued “The policy is blatantly discriminatory on grounds of gender preference”.
When France lifted its ban on gay men giving blood this year, the French Health Minister stated the prohibition should be aimed at stigmatising certain sexual practices, not a community.
It is a fact that gay and bi men are, overall, more at risk of HIV infection than straight men. However HIV infection is not a result of being gay or bi, but a result of sexual practices and it’s these sexual practices that should be the cause of the ban, not sexual preference. A ban on any and every gay and bi man who has had sex with another man unfairly discriminates against a very large proportion of gay and bi people who engage in safe sexual relations.
I can fully understand a gay or bi man who has led an active, promiscuous lifestyle, or engaged in unsafe sexual practice being banned from giving blood for the period during which he is at risk. However this is NOT what we are facing and this is NOT what we are trying to lift. Instead of targeting those people who actually ARE a high risk category, the NBS has imposed a blanket LIFETIME ban on ALL gay and bi men who have ever had sex with another man.
The NBS Policy is based on the presumption that all men who have sex with men are “high risk” for HIV, regardless of their individual sexual behaviour. Not only does such a policy catch the promiscuous male, it also catches people who have never had unprotected sex and people who are in long term monogamous relationships. It bans the older gay man who has not anal sex for 20 years, it even more absurdly bans the gay man who had a sexual health test 3 months ago and has been told by the NHS he is perfectly clean and healthy and has not had sex since. How about the 35yr old man who experimented with male/male sex once when he was at university, but is now happily married to a woman? How can any of these people be considered high risk, especially the last two examples? Such people are far LESS at risk than active promiscuous straight people, who do not face a ban. Nor does it matter if the sex you’ve had is protected or unprotected, despite protected sex being the best prevention for sexual HIV infection. It’s hard to understand how gay men who engage in protected sexual activity can be considered in the same risk category as those who do not, when the risk, according to the NHS, is substantially lower.
I do not believe the NBS has a deliberately homophobic policy. But when they are targeting unnecessarily a group of people who are not high risk – such as those examples above – and do not target equally risky practice, such as frequent and promiscuous unprotected between straight people, then yes, the policy is discriminatory.
guess that kinda sounds agressive... it was a response i wrote to an article in our student newspaper that said the ban was totally justified...
but yeah, even accepting the HIV risk status... why are women who have sex with men who have had sex with men, only subject to 1 years ban and men who lead active unprotected sex lives not banned at all?
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice article - not too aggressive at all, just the right amount of restrained frustration, I'd say.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my cousin asked me why can straight people give blood and gays/bis can surley every body can get infected just the same if a straight woman sleeps with a different guy every single night of her life but two guys who were virgins and lost their cherries at the same time together how owuld they be at risk?
this being the case would it be best to not say hes gay to the blood colection service
what you think?
personally i think the kids got a point
[Updated on: Sat, 02 December 2006 00:24]
Jay, I love u. You are my heart and my soul.
You are my other half. The final piece to my puzzle. I am complete when I am with you.
You turn a dark day into a bright sunny day.
You make me giddy with joy.Just from hearing your voice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - the kid's got a point. And I really understand the temptation - I haven't had sex with anyone for 20 years and am still banned, and I'll admit that I've thought about just lying.
But there are a couple of reasons why I don't.
Firstly is that I came out in order to be visible, and work for the acceptance of gay people - and any kind of lying about who I am and what I've done - even to the Blood Service - just doesn't fit comfortably with that.
Secondly, if I decide (having really gone into the question pretty thoroughly, and having done 2 years of a biological sciences degree before dropping out, and having kept up-to-date through reading New Scientist and similar publications for the past several decades) that I know better than the Blood Service, I'm in no position to criticise those who have MUCH higher-risk lifestyles who lie to the Blood Service.
So I get pissed off, but I do work actively to persuade them to change the rules. While the current rules are in place - discriminatory and stupid as they are - I feel I have to stick with them.
That's what works for me. But I wouldn't criticise anyone really and truly in the postition of the "two guys who were virgins and lost their cherries at the same time together" you mention if they decided differently.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but a hot temper leaps o'er a cold decree. Or so said Portia in 'The Merchant of Venice'.
I have to admit that, whilst not quite playing the Devil's advocate, I was (and still am) being deliberately obtuse, insofar as I am trying to reflect the views which might be expressed by a reasonably intelligent, str8 (but not especially homophobic) man in the street.
Such an observer would probably be unaware of the machinery and efficacy of HIV screening. He would however be influenced by the public perception of AIDS as something which primarily affects gay males - and, in UK terms, he would - overall - be statistically correct in doing so. It therefore seems to me to be logical to assume that he would be wholly unsympathetic to references to homophobia and allegations of sexual discrimination. Thus, in mounting an effective campaign to mobilise public opinion, such references and allegations should be avoided at all costs.
NW reports the NBS position is "to assert that gay men indulge in activities that have a higher-risk of the transmission of blood-borne infections, and that any new blood-transmissible infections are therefore first going to reach epidemic proportion in the promiscuous gay community before they are identified, so the best precaution is to ban any man who has sex with a man."
Without a precise citation (Who said that? When? Was it an official policy statement?) it is impossible to counter the conclusion effectively. And it does need to be countered effectively, because to our intelligent man in the street it sounds pretty persuasive. Current medical scholarship suggests that HIV evolved around 1930 in Cameroon by mutation from a virus carried by chimpanzees. There are a handful of retrospective diagnoses of cases arising over the next 50 years, but it was not recognised as a potentially epidemic problem until 1981. Thereafter, the potential epidemic fast became a reality, and the initial spread was indeed among homosexual males. NW says that the crucial factor is not gender-orientation but promiscuity; our man in the street replies ‘Exactly! Gay men are far too promiscuous!’ So, having validated the statement, the only rational basis of attack is to demand to know the scientific methodology underpinning it. Opposing expert medical opinion should not be hard to find - how is it that other blood-borne infections are not more prevalent in the homosexual community? Armed with such an opinion, there are several MPs who would be willing to raise this sort of issue in Parliament.
As regards the Andrew, Bob and Carol argument, I’m afraid that as it stands it is – to use Deeej’s favourite word – spurious. In statistical and logistic terms, the policy might well be valid; it all depends on the combination of the sector risk (the potential incidence of the HIV virus in a given group) and the handling risk (the potential for infected blood products to reach the end user). The figures will be much more complex that appears from my simple statement but, unless we know the numbers, we can’t crunch ‘em! And, as I’ve already suggested, any propaganda which focuses on discrimination rather than medico-logistics is apt to be counter-productive.
I should, I suppose, emphasise at this point that I think that there is a high probability that the assertions attributed to the NBS are unfounded, but then I’m potentially biased!
I think that the contribution from the Black Prince is fair and balanced, except that it, again, plays the discriminatory card. It would be much better to stick rigidly to the assertion that the restrictions are indefensibly restrictive and are depriving the NBS – and, through them, the British Public, of a scarce and much-needed resource.
Nevertheless, it remains open to attack from our hypothetical man in the street, especially if he elects to do a little research. The contribution mentions a 35-year-old who had gay sex while at university. First of all, the incubation period of the HIV virus is variable but long. Some sufferers contract AIDS soon after infection, but the typical incubation period is 10 to 12 years and it can be more than 20 years – so without specific testing the 35-year-old is still a significant risk. Our man in the street may also be influenced by the generally accepted estimate that the number of individuals in the UK infected by the HIV virus is 50% greater than the number actually diagnosed at any given time – or, put another way, one third of HIV carriers do not know that they have been infected by the virus.
Of course, there are plenty of statistics we can put forward, and it’s perhaps surprising that these have not been quoted more often. Since HIV was identified, there have been (to the end of June 2006) about 80,500 reported cases in the UK, of whom about 43,500 are still here – the balance includes emigrants as well as deaths. Adding in the undiagnosed cases, the estimate of the number currently infected is 63,500. In the same 25-year period there have been about 22,000 diagnoses of full-blown AIDS, of whom about 13,500 have died. A further 3,500 patients infected by HIV have died before a diagnosis of full-blown AIDS.
Those figures simply set the scale of the problem. When they are examined more closely, interesting trends emerge. Of the 80,500 HIV diagnoses above, 57,000 are male and 23,500 are female, and of the 57,000 males, 37,000 are likely to have contracted the virus from male/male sex – making them the largest category by a significant margin. Not much to surprise us there. But when the 25-year period is broken down on an annual basis, it is immediately clear that whilst in the 1980s, 85% of infections transmitted by sexual contact involved male/male sex, as against 15% involving male/female sex, in the 1990s things were changing fast. The number of male/female sexual transmissions rose much more quickly than male/male transmissions, and since 1999 male/female transmissions have exceeded male/male transmissions. In the seven-and-a-half years ending on 30 June 2006, 64% of new diagnoses attributed to sexual transmission related to male/female sex, as against 36% to male/male sex. More statistics are readily available on the web, but I hope that I’ve made my point about their value – our man in the street would probably be gobsmacked to learn that gays are very much in a minority when it comes to recent diagnoses.
I embarked upon this topic – inadvertently hijacking another thread – because I spent a goodly part of my professional life marshalling arguments in order to arrive at a desired result. If that taught me anything, the prime lesson was to learn to anticipate the opposition. Whatever may be the true motive in advancing an argument, it should always be aimed at the uncommitted but rational observer – our man in the street.
So what are we trying to do here? If our primary motivation is simply to attack perceived homophobic discrimination, I’ll get off the bus now. But if we are trying to achieve a change in the current – and probably unjustified – selection criteria FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE VOLUME OF SAFE BLOOD PRODUCTS AVAILABLE, I’m here until we reach the terminus.
But, if that IS our objective, how about trumping the concerns about delayed incubation and other emotive issues by proposing a card-clearance system, under which an NHS ‘Clean Bill of Health’ is recorded on a card, renewable – say – at five-year intervals, so that a gay male could affirm that since the card was issued, he has either had no anal sex, or has been in a monogamous relationship with someone else whose ‘Clearance Card’ is also valid and available for inspection? Similar requirements could be applied to other above-average risk categories.
Or would this be seen as another infringement of civil liberties? – in which case, I would regard our position as purely selfish.
Sorry about the length of this post, but – at least in my view – it’s an important and provocative topic which obliges gay males to consider their true motivation – do we care about our ‘rights’ more than we care about our fellow-men?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual, an interesting set of points, cossie.
In general, the points that I make here (and in other "mainly-gay" spaces) are very different from the ones I'd make to a different audience, and I fully accept your point about not alienating potential allies.
There is a very good reason indeed for not tackling this in terms of incidence in the population, transmission rates, etc. For anyone without a statistical background, the figures can make it seem as though catching HIV through unprotected sex is fairly low-risk. This is not the case, and unprotected sex is stupid and dangerous!
But the simple fact is that while we do know a bit about some of these figures, we don't know enough. Kinsey and other workers have suggested that over a third of all males have had some same-sex sex to the point of orgasm - often as youthful experimentation. Do we, as NBS seems to, class these men as "gay" when looking at risk? Clearly, that's meaningless. But estimates of gay men vary from one in six to one in twenty: there is no way accurate figures can be obtained. So we have to look at actual activity per individual, not "sector risk". And that is what we are asking for.
And for precisely that reason, I don't see any justification for treating gay men and women differently. Any card or clearance system should be equally applicable to both, be based on appropriate tests, and the sexual activities carried out since the last test.
And I'm afraid that I also disagree about why we should do this. When I was first told that my blood was no longer acceptable, my concern was that many regular donors were being excluded, and I was concerned about the supply of blood. I have since helped the NBS in other ways, despite my feelings about their policies. But - for me, if not for others - this is not any longer only about the supply of blood: it is about a policy which is without scientific justification, which is being reviewed and abandoned by an increasing number of responsible authorities in comparable countries elsewhere, and which, ultimately, which paints gay men as "plague-carriers".
[Edit] OK, on re-reading, that last line is rather emotive. And I'm tempted to remove it. But, actually, it's how I feel about what they're doing. So let it stay.
[Updated on: Sat, 02 December 2006 05:01]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I don't think that - realistically - it is (in this situation) reasonable to expect to be looked at 'individually', as opposed to being viewed as a member of a 'sector'. Simple logistics (which simply means statistical economics) militates against it. To expect individual treatment is - in real terms - a purely selfish ambition. 'Sectoring' is logistic imperative.
I agree entirely about the absolute need to promote protected sex, but that does not justify suppression of statistical evidence.
Looking at 'teenage experimentation' I am not, instinctively, out of sympathy with your views. But, if only one in a group of twenty experimenters was concurrently involved with an adult - not by any means an unrealistic possibility - there are certainly serious grounds for caution.
I agree without reservation that risk, not gender, should determine how sectors are treated.
But, finally, I think you may be in danger of being too emotive. If you wish to challenge the status quo, you should do so on a basis of the scientific evidence, not simply because you perceive yourself as a victim of homophobia.
We know each other too well to fall out about this, but I'd better mention that I'm wilting fast and on my way to bed, so my response to your response will have to wait until tomorrow - or possibly even Sunday, as my daughter is at home for the weekend and may well expect to be extravagantly wined and dined tomorrow evening!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can we come me and jay pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze
Jay, I love u. You are my heart and my soul.
You are my other half. The final piece to my puzzle. I am complete when I am with you.
You turn a dark day into a bright sunny day.
You make me giddy with joy.Just from hearing your voice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a good summary of the current understanding on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#Transmission_and_prevention , showing receptive anal intercourse (which is of course not restricted to gay men - around 10% of heterosexual couples are estimated to do this at least occasionally) is around 5 times more likely to transmit the virus than receptive vaginal intercourse. Incidence of HIV in the population is anyone's guess - cossie's figures show the UK "recorded" figures, and I'm happy to accept the "add 50%" guesstimate for undiagnosed cases.
But what these figures don't show is the amazing difference between people, practices, and geographical areas. Estimates for the proportion of gay men who are HIV+ in London vary between 1 in 12 and 1 in 7. This is a horrendous figure! And I have personal experience of being in gay mens workshops - on subjects totally unrelated to HIV, like confidence-building - where over a third of the participants were HIV+. But this is clearly a very local phenomenom.
My objection to the current NBS policy is that it is based on sexual orientation, not risk. For a gay man who has a single partner, and who is one of the roughly 30% of gay men who never practises anal sex, the risk is FAR lower than it is for a straight woman with a promiscuous partner who enjoys anal sex. The current restrictions make about as much sense as restricting people on where they live (city dwellers are more likely to carry the virus than country-dwellers).
And an apology - yes: I was in an emotionally fragile state yesterday, and it showed. Too much thinking about guys I knew in the 1980s, guys who died before the modern combined therapies / HAART / etc were available.
So, my misgivings ....
Well, they're about the acquisition of HIV by exposure table link I gave earlier. Please please please don't anyone be fooled into thinking that a rate of infection per unprotected sexual act of 50/10000 is small ! Use a condom where appropriate, and if you're sexually active, get tested regularly, for the sake of your own health and the health of your partners.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Well, as Benjamin Disraeli is reputed to have said, 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics'!
The science of statistics has moved on a bit since then, but it is still easy to misuse the figures - which is why I think that it's important to use simple concepts like those in my post. The table you quote is subtly complex. For example, the likelihood of infection if given a transfusion of infected blood is around 90%, but (I believe) quality controls on transfused blood in the UK are so tight that no-one has actually been infected in this way for at least four years. As regards the 0.5% chance of infection from receptive anal intercourse, this of course applies only where the 'top' is infected by HIV; the risk overall is even lower. But it's still vastly higher than the risk of being killed in a road accident! Statistically, an infected promiscuous homosexual 'top' who has sex twice each week will, on average, infect one other person every two years, but each such person is then capable of transmitting the infection to others - and none of them may even know that they are infected. The scary bit, upon which we need to focus, is that the first partner is just as likely to be infected as the two-hundredth. There can be no doubt that condoms should ALWAYS be used unless both parties have a clean bill of health and are mutually faithful.
To illustrate the potential dangers of statistics, consider the figures in my last-but-one post. To the extent that they relate only to recorded diagnoses, they are pretty much reliable, though not absolutely so, since they depend on the honesty of those diagnosed with the infection. If anything, the gay percentages may be understated if some of those infected refused to admit to having gay sex. Once we move to the number currently affected, we enter the realms of guesswork. The 'add 50%' formula is generally accepted, but the true percentage could be anything from 35% to 65%. 'Best guessing' is a valid technique, but it means that further speculation based upon the resultant figure is highly suspect. As an example of this, consider the final figures that I quoted - that, in the 7.5 years to 30 June 2006, of infections arising from sexual contact some 64% were attributed to male/female sex, as against 36% to male/male sex. That's a pretty reliable figure. Is it reassuring to the gay community? Well, yes, because the frequency of male/male transmission is falling fast as a result of responsible use of condoms. But it sounds a lot better than it is, because the incidence of male/male sex is much lower than the incidence of male/female sex. We really have no idea of the relative frequency of male/male and male/female coupling, but we might reasonably infer from figures that NW has quoted that male/male sex accounts for between 5% and 15% of the total. Assuming 15%, this means that the likelihood of infection through male/male contact is around three times more likely than through male/female contact, whilst assuming 5% gives a result of eleven times more likely. So the homophobic lobby might trumpet a headline that gay sex is up to eleven times more likely to lead to HIV infection. This conclusion is specious - in fact it's total rubbish. And it's rubbish for two distinct reasons. First, as many of you will already have realised, it's reasonable as at the end of 2006 to argue that the risks from gay sex are greater than from straight sex, but there really isn't any valid evidence to support the 5% assumption. It might equally well be 15% - but in homophobic circles no-one is going to mention that it's just as likely that gay sex is only three times more 'dangerous' than straight sex. The second, less obvious - but much more important - factor is that among the gay community the proportion of infected individuals is declining and the use of condoms is significantly increasing; by contrast, the proportion of HIV-carriers in the straight community is increasing fast, though the use of condoms has not materially increased.
So, on a rounded view of the statistical evidence, the most important sector to address in containing HIV in the UK is the str8 community - but how often do you see THAT conclusion reflected in the press?
So much for the dangers of statistics – and, therefore, the need to have the real facts at your fingertips, so that favourable statistics can be validated and unfavourable conclusions can be discredited.
I’m alarmed to see that, so far, I’ve only responded to NW’s first paragraph. May I take the second and third together?
What NW is saying is that NBS is using a blunt instrument to decide whose blood is, and whose is not, acceptable. I think that this is inevitable. Using Home Insurance as an example, your postcode is much more important than your sense of responsibility, integrity and security. (Apologies to overseas readers – UK postcodes define fairly small areas; the full postcode identifies an average of between 50 and 100 dwellings.) Insurers are sensitive to the first three elements of the postcode. The initial letter or letters indicates the principal town or city in the region; the next number denotes a largish area within that region, and the next number denotes a smaller area usually containing no more than 5,000 dwellings. So, in the fictional region surrounding the fictional city of Maxwellborough, all postcodes will begin with MX. MX36 relates only to the rural town of Cossiechester and its surrounding countryside. MX36 7** relates only to the area to the South of the town. That’s as sophisticated as insurers are prepared to get. Maybe MX36 7JB is part of a slum area with a high crime rate, while MX36 7PN is a brand-new estate of highly priced executive housing – but it’s still MX36 7**, and your premium will be calculated accordingly. Of course, premiums in MX36 9**, a wholly rural area only a mile or two away, may be much lower.
Why should this be? Well, it’s simply a matter of economics – it’s much cheaper to base premiums on postcodes than it is to examine each applicant individually. So it is with blood donations; broad categories require less follow-up scrutiny than individual evaluations. In economic terms, that is an entirely adequate justification of the way that NBS operates. And, to be brutally frank, the ‘discrimination’ card will never trump the ‘economic’ card, and I believe that it is right that that should be so. Which, of course, is why I feel so deeply that opposition to the present NBS regime should be focused upon the extent to which it is losing contributions of safe blood products rather than upon any sort of argument about discrimination.
Adopting once again the persona of the ‘man-in-the-street’, I don’t give a damn for your arguments about discrimination, but it matters a whole lot to me that the blood my child (or wife, partner or parent) may need is in very short supply.
Finally, NW, you know you have no reason to apologise to me; I think we understand each other pretty well, even if our standpoints are subtly different!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Apart from the question of who's going to pay Jay's taxi fare from Texas, now that I've discovered you're in Manchester I'm not sure I should be talking to you! After all, Aussie's ancestors came from Oldham, and that's not far East of Manchester. Mind you, I reckon they were probably among the original criminals sent to Australia!
Have you been to Canal Street yet? - out of uniform, of course!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love your example about insurance!
My insurer charges me pretty highly for where I live - an inner city regeneration area. But they give anyone living anywhere a discount for certain security measures (specific locks, alarms etc).
I'd like the NBS to give a discount to anyone, anywhere, for certain things ... like not having had anal sex for a couple of years and testing HIV-, or whatever. It seems to me that the principle is exactly the same!
And as regards the "economic" rather than the "discrimination" argument, we'll just (as so often) have to agree to differ. I'm not happy living in a society where discrimination on any grounds exists (except fully and accurately detailed assessment of risks to public safety). I was part of the successful campaign to abolish the "suss" laws, used in a discriminatory fashion to stop, search, and harrass young black guys in London and elsewhere. I have successfully challenged conditions at work (relating to mealbreaks) which discriminated against Muslims during Ramadhan. I continue to campaign for gay partnerships to be accorded FULL parity with straight ones. I see the issue of gay men giving blood as part of the same stand against irrational discrimination - while I accept that in the past the precautionary principle was properly applied, we now have sufficient knowledge and experience to reduce the level of discrimination that we as a society impose. And because we CAN, we MUST.
This is not the argument that I would use on "the person in the street", but nor would I use the kind of detailed analysis you (cossie) put forward. The average tabloid-reader can, however, understand the Andrew, Bob, Carole example - though it isn't perfect - and that's what I normally use.
But - as I see it - the ethical basis is that if we can reduce discrimination, in any form, we must do so.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I don't disagree with any of that - but I still maintain that, in any political campaign, it is essential to determine what you seek to achieve and to proceed in the manner which is most likely to achieve that objective.
In this case, 'discrimination' won't attract very many votes; on the other hand, 'unnecessary rejection of significant quantities of safe blood products' WILL attract support.
I'm afraid that I see your approach as being parallel to the shortsightedness of the Labour Party in electing Michael Foot, or, subsequently, Neil Kinnock as their party leader. They may well have reflected the political aims of the Party, but they lacked the charisma to bring in the votes - and, without power, nothing can be achieved. Under Denis Healey, that power might well have been within the Party's grasp.
When embarking upon a crusade, the objective is to win. Success is the only genuine morality. It may seem crude, but that's the way the world works, and reality must be harnessed to our advantage.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> When embarking upon a crusade, the objective is to win. Success is the only genuine morality.
I think you're over-stating that a bit!
If it were so, surely the best way of crusading would be to fill the press with scare stores about how "the shortage" means we're having to buy in inferior foreign blood which is bound to have all kinds of nasty diseases in it and we're all gonna die ... complete with pictures of some nauseatingly cute six-year-old girl on an IV drip smiling bravely from her wheelchair as she visits Eurodisney in what is destined to be the last year of her life ...
None of which (apart from occasionally buying foreign blood) is true. But it would be extremely successful - cossie might challenge it, but few people have his analytical mind. Pandering to the British fear of foreigners is always a winner!
Marketing was one of my concerns for over a dozen years - first as a Sales Manager, and then running venues. Every gig, every show, every play, every concert, every drama class, ... all need publicity, and for most this means advertising. I can - just - clear that with my conscience, as obviously I have never knowingly booked a shitty show, nor delivered a substandard event. But I won't knowingly lie about such things ... nor would I knowingly use false information to further a campaign, no matter how strongly I feel. For me, the end does not ever justify such means.
But I think we're getting into an exchange of hyperbole here - "success is the only morality" vs "the end does not ever justify such means".
[ edit - I should have put puppies or kittens into the picture in my second paragraph - sorry to have left them out: it's too early on a Sunday for my brain to be fully awake!]
[Updated on: Sun, 03 December 2006 12:06]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I humbly apologise for a sloppy choice of words! My only defence is that I was posting even earlier on a Sunday Morning!
I obsequiously withdraw the final paragraph of my previous post -
"When embarking upon a crusade, the objective is to win. Success is the only genuine morality. It may seem crude, but that's the way the world works, and reality must be harnessed to our advantage."
- and, with much wringing of hands and cringing expressions of subservience, I substitute the following:
"When seeking a goal which we believe to be morally right, we must look at all the available arguments, and utilise those which are most likely to achieve success - even if those arguments do not reflect - or even mention - the issues which originally motivated us. So long as we maintain our integrity, such an approach is morally justified. In some respects this may seem crude, but that's the way the world works, and reality must be harnessed to our advantage."
In other words, I'm effectively generalising what went before. We believe that the NBS restrictions are unnecessarily draconian, discriminatory, possibly motivated by homophobia and counter-productive insofar as a significant volume of safe blood products is lost to the National Heath Service. We want to change this. To do so, we need to influence public opinion and attract influential support. Even though we feel that we are the subject of unfair discrimination, media reporting over the last 25 years has created suspicion about the safety of blood from gay donors. As a result, arguing that we are victims of discrimination is unlikely to engender support. So put the cart before the horse - argue, with appropriate statistical and other evidence, that the stance adopted by the NBS is putting unnecessary strain upon already scarce resources. That argument is equally valid but, if we avoid any reference to discrimination, it WILL generate public support and concern. Does it really matter that the desired objective is achieved by an alternative route, so long as it is achieved?
I'll try to do better next time!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm happy to say that I'm in complete agreement with your revised paragraph!
(HUGS)
And if such a situation crops up again, I'll try to be a bit clearer about who I'm trying to convince - that is, whether I'm trying to convince other posters and lurkers here (who are presumably gay-friendly), or rehearsing arguments that may convince a wider cross-section of society - I think I was initially confused about which of these we were talking about.
But I still wish I'd managed to work a cute fluffy kitten into my last post: next time I'll try to do better ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... how about Golden Retriever puppies?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not my design, though I've altered the colours to work on a white background.
All together now ....
awwww, cute !
_.="""=._
/` \\ / `\\
/ / _} {_ \\ \\
/ ; /o) (o\\ ; \\
\\ | / _ \\ | /
\\_/ | (_) |/\\_/
jgs /`\\_/=\\_/`\\
/` `"` `\\
{ }
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
replying to no specific post with this but i suppose mainly directed at Cossie
are we playing the discrimination card?
yes, hell yes
why? because there IS discrimination in the policy on 2 grounds
one
a man who has had sex with a man is banned from giving blood for life
a woman who has sex with a man who has had sex with man is banned for 12 months.
two
men who have sex with men predominantly discriminates against gay and bisexual men.
under EU law, (which is where the blood service gets its mandate from) an apparently neutral policy is indirectly discriminate where the group it affects is predominantly composed of a single group.
a policy aimed at pregnant people discriminates against women
a policy aimed at part time workers will (in most employment environments) discriminate against women
i agree a lot of people don't like campaigning on the discrimination issues, but despite the blood services protests to the contrary, the policy IS discriminate
moving on from that, other ridiculous parts of the policy include the irrelevance of protected sex.
if the policy was truely based on risk factors rather than other factors, then it should treat people who have had protected sex differently from those who have unprotected sex.
as it stands, the blood service ask no questions whatsoever about your sex life with regards to level of activity and protectedness
instead, all they ask is:
have you had sex in an african country
have you had sex with an african
have you had sex with someone you know to be HIV positive
for men only: have you had sex with another man oral or anal with or without protection
for women only: have you had sex with a man who has sex with another man, oral or anal with or withour protection in the last 12 months
clearly aiming then, at the risk factors of what is effectively "gay sex", which when you consider that HIV infection is just as likely in straight men/women who have never enaged in same sex sexual relations is absurd.
the absurdity increases when you remember that according to WHO and the NHS sucessfully protected sexual intercourse will prevent HIV transmission. so if a gay man has never had unprotected intercourse of any form, he's safe.
and while not condoning the activity of course, it is to be remembered that HIV is a virus. to get HIV you must sleep with someone who has HIV.
80,000 infected people is a large number, but out of potentially 40million adults it becomes smaller and smaller. when you also consider the region stats i think NW posted, a gay couple from back country wales who have never been anywhere else have limited chances of infection, certainly less than sexually active students at a london college.
2 virgins having sex are ultimately safe from HIV. if those 2 virgins have a monogamous relationship with each other for the rest of their lives... they are safe from sexual infection of HIV.
a researcher who talked about this during a law workshop on HIv infection also pointed out that even if you had unprotected intercourse with someone with HIV, transmission of it is not guaranteed.
as an aside, in the UK there have been so far 10 legal cases and 9 sucessful prosecutions for the common law offence of Biological GBH, in other words,infecting someone with HIV without them consenting to the risk of infection.
the 2 high profile precedent setting cases (R v Dica and R v Konzani) and 7 of the cases that followed involved male to female transmission. 1 case involved female to male transmission. there have been no cases involving male to male transmission.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... though in many respects I have a good deal of sympathy for the points of view you have expressed since you came to the board, you disappoint me here.
I agree without reservation that the NBS position is wrong. That is not the issue. I wonder whether you have read in any detail the exchanges between NW and I? The hard and inescapable fact is that gays are - and not without historical justification - regarded as a high-risk group in terms of blood donation. If you seek to rectify the situation, you - realistically - have to do so by demonstrating that medical opinion takes a different view.
As a law student, you will be aware of the significance of legal precedent. You need also to study historical precedent (the Labour leadership issue already quoted is but one example) and learn from misguided endeavours in the past.
Yes, the NBS is wrong. But to tackle this in terms of discrimination is, frankly, stupid. It implies a purely selfish motive. There are much better rational and logical grounds for arguing for change, and for achieving the desired result.
Though I'm at the opposite end of the political spectrum - I'm very firmly committed to the political left wing - I respect what you are trying to do. But, as a word of advice from an activist roughly three times your age, keep your eye on the goal rather than upon the politically-correct flag-waving but, at thev same time, preserve your moral integrity.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol since i'm a corporate whore for coca cola, i don't think many people would consider i have much in the way of moral integrity anyway! hehe
gays are indeed regarded as a high risk group - in this country.
other countries in the EU applying the same criteria reach different conclusions. the high risk group is unsafe sexual practices, not sexual orientation. given that the difference between gay and straight HIV infections has not only been equalised but practically reversed, it becomes rather indefensible to say thatr gays continue to be a high risk group. to refuse to look at new evidence, and simply evaluate in terms of historical precedent is fairly absurd. The NBS justify they're policy in terms of high risk groups, the medical evidence relating to some areas of their policy, including evidence coming from the NHS disproves this fact, and there is penty of other evidence to back this up.
why then is the ban being perpetuated in light of all this, and in light of the actions of our european brethren? the two possible explanations are that the people who run the NBS are either stupid or incompetant, or that they wish, indirectly or directly, deliberately or by inference to enforce a policy that has been said by the Medical Director of the Irish Blood Service, the French Minister ofr Health, and the former Italian Minister for Health is discriminatory.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is surely the best approach? Horses for courses, and so on.
For those in government, local government, the EU, etc, there is usually such an 'equalities culture' that muttering "discrimination" is far more likely to produce a reaction than any statistical discussion of need for additional blood.
But to the bigot-in-the-street, who may already be feeling quite threatened by equalities issues (age, race, sex, disability, religion ... plus sexual orientation), the "I can help save your daughters life" approach may be more productive.
I'll try to tailor my arguments to the audience (much of the debate above between cossie and myself was, I think, talking at cross-purposes about different audiences) - the important thing in reaching a critical mass of public opinion is to appeal to the self-interest of enough small groups to build up a head of steam ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i found, the best argument for the general public was to highlight the differences that occur - the 12 months vs lifetime ban for men and women for example - and let them make up their own opinion on whether its discrimination or not.
my experience on the national day of action produce the following stats
only 1 in 153 found the policy didn't discriminate!
152 ordinary stokies and students agreed with us that the policy was discriminatory
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: More about blood - the USA 
