Nice that they ignore bisexual men in their response, does this mean I can donate after all...?
Most of the Government responses I've seen have been basically "Why we think you are wrong and are going to ignore you", and are often poorly put together.
"Although safer sex campaigns have had an impact, it is still considered that the risk of gay men being infected with HIV remains sufficiently high to include the criterion that they should not donate blood."
Seems pretty clear to me, and it's also accurate. It'd be nice if they'd s/gay men/men who have sex with men/ throughout, though.
I forgot to say; although that deficiency is present in the petition response, the Blood Service themselves are scrupulously careful to define the restrictions in terms of activity, not sexual orientation. It's a shame whoever drafted this reply did not refer more closely to the source of the restrictions.
Yeah, right now I'm cross about the sloppiness of the drafting. I don't have the data to do the calculations myself, but I can see the logic of the argument that if the transmission rate is higher amongst groups of people who behave in particular ways then a blanket ban on that group may be justifiable in order to prevent harm to patients. But they didn't say that very well. The reply's been dumbed down to the point of offensiveness (cf. gay men who are subsequently found to have HIV LIED about their behaviour) and err bisexuals/other MSM/intersexed people etc.
Well, I don't disagree with most of that, but I think they effectively say that gay men who are subsequently found to have HIV lied about their behaviour because that is the truth; those men have knowingly made an untrue statement and furthermore they have done so in a way that is highly irresponsible and endangers other people.
The real reason that's not practical is that any additional questioning - particularly personal questions, and you don't get much more personal than this - loses you a lot of blood because people in low-risk groups don't like it much - and gains you only a tiny amount, because MSM have such a high incidence that only the very lowest "low-risk" men are lower risk than the population at large.
Serious question: do we know of any petitions via that service that haven't been given this sort of "here's why we were right all along, thank you for your time" reply?
The Government agreed with this one: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10776.asp . But that's basically only because they already agreed - I've never seen a case where they change their opinion based on the petition, they simply state what the Government's position is on the matter.
Giving blood is neither a right nor a privilege: it's the ability to receive it in an emergency that actually matters. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that there's a shortage, so I don't see why people get so upset about it.
If there was a shortage, then it would certainly be well worthwhile looking at whether the current rules are over-cautious and whether they could be relaxed in a way that was both safe and improved supply. But I've yet to hear anyone stating there's a shortage. In the meantime, there are more important things to worry about.
Blood donation rules have annoyed me since I was old enough to donate. Then being ruled out as I'd had major surgery, which all my doctors thought was a load of rubbish. And when I wrote to the NBS I was told people"with my condition" were at risk so couldn't give blood. I wasn't aware I had a "condition". And now I'm also ruled out having had sex with men who've had sex with men.
Re Neighbours: I'm very annoyed and disappointed with the bbc's decision. I've watched since the first episode and was part of the big fangirl thing when it started. Have posted to BBC site. I have lunch when it's on,it's about the only bit of routine I have in my life(Yes I'm that sad and don't stick to routines easily) Though we do still have it til March(I think) on BBC.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Most of the Government responses I've seen have been basically "Why we think you are wrong and are going to ignore you", and are often poorly put together.
no subject
no subject
Seems pretty clear to me, and it's also accurate. It'd be nice if they'd s/gay men/men who have sex with men/ throughout, though.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Oh yes how on Earth can you expect donor session staff to know what transfers HIV? *rolls eyes*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Giving blood is neither a right nor a privilege: it's the ability to receive it in an emergency that actually matters. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that there's a shortage, so I don't see why people get so upset about it.
If there was a shortage, then it would certainly be well worthwhile looking at whether the current rules are over-cautious and whether they could be relaxed in a way that was both safe and improved supply. But I've yet to hear anyone stating there's a shortage. In the meantime, there are more important things to worry about.
Double bah
Re Neighbours: I'm very annoyed and disappointed with the bbc's decision. I've watched since the first episode and was part of the big fangirl thing when it started. Have posted to BBC site.
I have lunch when it's on,it's about the only bit of routine I have in my life(Yes I'm that sad and don't stick to routines easily)
Though we do still have it til March(I think) on BBC.