Current Events > Canadian blood people recommend ending ban on homosexuals donating blood.

Topic List	Page List: 1
UnfairRepresent 12/16/21 1:12:44 PM #1:	Canadian Blood Services has today recommended an end to the ban on sexually active gay men donating blood in a submission to Health Canada. It submitted a proposal, backed by research, suggesting that screening focus on high-risk behaviour including having multiple sexual partners by all donors instead. Federal ministers, including the prime minister, have said they want to speed up an end to the gay blood ban, and Health Canada is expected to respond to the blood-service recommendation by the spring. Currently, men can only give blood if it has been more than three months since their last sexual contact with a man. The blood service said its goal is to stop asking men if they have had sex with another man. It says research it has conducted, and evidence from abroad, shows that the change would pose no safety risk to the blood supply. Health Canada must approve the recommendation before it can be implemented. The blood service has suggested that the new screening questions be changed to focus on risk, not sexual orientation. All potential donors would be asked if they have had new or multiple sexual partners. If they answer yes, they would then be asked if they have had anal sex. Full Article: https://www.cranbrooktownsman.com/news/blood-service-recommends-health-canada-end-gay-blood-donation-ban/ https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/6/4/AAZiH8AABm5Y.jpg "Bloody donations! " ~ Canadian --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:960968586] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Canadian Blood Services has today recommended an end to the ban on sexually active gay men donating blood in a submission to Health Canada. It submitted a proposal, backed by research, suggesting that screening focus on high-risk behaviour including having multiple sexual partners by all donors instead. Federal ministers, including the prime minister, have said they want to speed up an end to the gay blood ban, and Health Canada is expected to respond to the blood-service recommendation by the spring. Currently, men can only give blood if it has been more than three months since their last sexual contact with a man. The blood service said its goal is to stop asking men if they have had sex with another man. It says research it has conducted, and evidence from abroad, shows that the change would pose no safety risk to the blood supply. Health Canada must approve the recommendation before it can be implemented. The blood service has suggested that the new screening questions be changed to focus on risk, not sexual orientation. All potential donors would be asked if they have had new or multiple sexual partners. If they answer yes, they would then be asked if they have had anal sex. Full Article: https://www.cranbrooktownsman.com/news/blood-service-recommends-health-canada-end-gay-blood-donation-ban/ https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/6/4/AAZiH8AABm5Y.jpg "Bloody donations! " ~ Canadian </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nothanks1 12/16/21 1:17:25 PM #2:	'homosexuals' <cite>nothanks1 posted [p:960968712] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>'homosexuals'</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tropicalwood 12/16/21 1:27:20 PM #3:	Blood people? They're called vampires. --- ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya ayy lmao ayy lmao \|\| oaml oaml yya yya <cite>Tropicalwood posted [p:960968968] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Blood people? They're called vampires. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/16/21 1:28:08 PM #4:	UnfairRepresent posted... The blood service said its goal is to stop asking men if they have had sex with another man. will they be implementing some form of homophobia swear jar? make each tech put a dollar in every time they accidentally a homophobic statement? --- Taarsidath-an halsaam. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:960968990] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>The blood service said its goal is to stop asking men if they have had sex with another man.</quote>will they be implementing some form of homophobia swear jar? make each tech put a dollar in every time they accidentally a homophobic statement? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trumble 12/16/21 1:28:16 PM #5:	UnfairRepresent posted... It submitted a proposal, backed by research, suggesting that screening focus on high-risk behaviour including having multiple sexual partners by all donors instead. This should ALWAYS be how things are handled. Target the actual risk/disadvantage/etc (whichever is applicable) factor, rather than using some other trait as a loosely-accurate (if even that) proxy. --- Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to Trumble look more like? <cite>Trumble posted [p:960968995] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>It submitted a proposal, backed by research, suggesting that screening focus on high-risk behaviour including having multiple sexual partners by all donors instead.</quote> This should ALWAYS be how things are handled. Target the actual risk/disadvantage/etc (whichever is applicable) factor, rather than using some other trait as a loosely-accurate (if even that) proxy. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solar_Crimson 12/16/21 1:29:40 PM #6:	UnfairRepresent posted... It submitted a proposal, backed by research, suggesting that screening focus on high-risk behaviour including having multiple sexual partners by all donors instead. This is the better idea by far. --- I often wonder if we are growing as a people... or in fact, regressing. <cite>Solar_Crimson posted [p:960969019] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>It submitted a proposal, backed by research, suggesting that screening focus on high-risk behaviour including having multiple sexual partners by all donors instead.</quote>This is the better idea by far. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SparkClark 12/16/21 1:33:41 PM #7:	good, this should have happened long ago. now if the American Red Cross will finally join the 2020s --- {;(~) otherwise known as Giant_Aspirin <cite>SparkClark posted [p:960969121] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>good, this should have happened long ago. now if the American Red Cross will finally join the 2020s </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Bass 12/16/21 1:35:23 PM #8:	Solar_Crimson posted... This is the better idea by far. Yup, that actually makes sense unlike the current ban. --- Many Bothans died to bring you this post. <cite>Master_Bass posted [p:960969145] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Solar_Crimson posted... </cite> <quote>This is the better idea by far.</quote>Yup, that actually makes sense unlike the current ban. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/16/21 1:40:08 PM #9:	SparkClark posted... good, this should have happened long ago. it has in some places --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:960969274] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>SparkClark posted... </cite> <quote>good, this should have happened long ago.</quote>it has in some places </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#10	Post #10 was unavailable or deleted.
specialkid8 12/16/21 1:54:12 PM #11:	Tropicalwood posted... Blood people? They're called vampires. Seriously. Don't be a bigot. --- https://i.imgur.com/AUXKMK4.jpg <cite>specialkid8 posted [p:960969650] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Tropicalwood posted... </cite> <quote>Blood people? They're called vampires.</quote>Seriously. Don't be a bigot. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trumble 12/16/21 2:02:01 PM #12:	specialkid8 posted... Seriously. Don't be a bigot. ...what the hell is bigoted about making a joke about TC's choice of wording to refer to people who run the blood donation program? --- Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to Trumble look more like? <cite>Trumble posted [p:960969834] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>specialkid8 posted... </cite> <quote>Seriously. Don't be a bigot.</quote>...what the hell is bigoted about making a joke about TC's choice of wording to refer to people who run the blood donation program? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Esrac 12/16/21 2:30:46 PM #13:	Trumble posted... This should ALWAYS be how things are handled. Target the actual risk/disadvantage/etc (whichever is applicable) factor, rather than using some other trait as a loosely-accurate (if even that) proxy. They target homosexual men, or more specifically men who have had sex with other men, because they tend to have a wildly disproportionate HIV infection rate. In the US, for example, gay men might make up 4% of the male population, but almost 70% of all HIV infections. (Please allow for some wiggle room for men who have had sex with other men, but don't identify as gay). When the disparity is that wide, a flat ban does seem to make sense. <cite>Esrac posted [p:960970537] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Trumble posted... </cite> <quote>This should ALWAYS be how things are handled. Target the actual risk/disadvantage/etc (whichever is applicable) factor, rather than using some other trait as a loosely-accurate (if even that) proxy.</quote> They target homosexual men, or more specifically men who have had sex with other men, because they tend to have a wildly disproportionate HIV infection rate. In the US, for example, gay men might make up 4% of the male population, but almost 70% of all HIV infections. (Please allow for some wiggle room for men who have had sex with other men, but don't identify as gay). When the disparity is that wide, a flat ban does seem to make sense. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trumble 12/16/21 2:33:03 PM #14:	Esrac posted... Correlation and causation are two different things. High-risk sexual activity, not homosexual activity, is the causative factor, and while that still won't get perfect results (because, for example, some people may not be honest - but that's equally true when the question is "are you gay?"), it will be closer, as well as open it up to some people who are not high risk but currently excluded anyway. --- Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to Trumble look more like? <cite>Trumble posted [p:960970601] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Esrac posted... </cite> <quote> </quote> Correlation and causation are two different things. High-risk sexual activity, not homosexual activity, is the causative factor, and while that still won't get perfect results (because, for example, some people may not be honest - but that's equally true when the question is "are you gay?"), it will be closer, as well as open it up to some people who are not high risk but currently excluded anyway. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSJPurple 12/16/21 2:39:38 PM #15:	Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate? --- Eternal Grey <cite>SSJPurple posted [p:960970789] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
monkmith 12/16/21 2:51:19 PM #16:	SSJPurple posted... Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate? not sure how Canada handles their blood supply but that's what the red cross does in the US. they sure as hell dont take what you write down as the truth. --- Taarsidath-an halsaam. Quando il gioco e finito, il re e il pedone vanno nella stessa scatola <cite>monkmith posted [p:960971086] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>SSJPurple posted... </cite> <quote>Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate?</quote>not sure how Canada handles their blood supply but that's what the red cross does in the US. they sure as hell dont take what you write down as the truth. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Simon_Gruber 12/16/21 2:56:44 PM #17:	monkmith posted... not sure how Canada handles their blood supply but that's what the red cross does in the US. they sure as hell dont take what you write down as the truth. Yeah, whenever I've donated they always take like 2 or 3 small vials for testing purposes along with the actual full bag. <cite>Simon_Gruber posted [p:960971226] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>monkmith posted... </cite> <quote>not sure how Canada handles their blood supply but that's what the red cross does in the US. they sure as hell dont take what you write down as the truth.</quote> Yeah, whenever I've donated they always take like 2 or 3 small vials for testing purposes along with the actual full bag. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Esrac 12/16/21 3:00:23 PM #18:	Trumble posted... Correlation and causation are two different things. High-risk sexual activity, not homosexual activity, is the causative factor, and while that still won't get perfect results (because, for example, some people may not be honest - but that's equally true when the question is "are you gay?"), it will be closer, as well as open it up to some people who are not high risk but currently excluded anyway. I'm aware of the difference, but I dont think it really makes a significant difference. Homosexual men are banned because they have a disproportionate infection rate. They have a disproportionate infection rate, because they, as a demographic, disproportionatly engage in high risk sexual activity. <cite>Esrac posted [p:960971326] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Trumble posted... </cite> <quote>Correlation and causation are two different things. High-risk sexual activity, not homosexual activity, is the causative factor, and while that still won't get perfect results (because, for example, some people may not be honest - but that's equally true when the question is "are you gay?"), it will be closer, as well as open it up to some people who are not high risk but currently excluded anyway.</quote> I'm aware of the difference, but I dont think it really makes a significant difference. Homosexual men are banned because they have a disproportionate infection rate. They have a disproportionate infection rate, because they, as a demographic, disproportionatly engage in high risk sexual activity. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trumble 12/16/21 3:00:52 PM #19:	SSJPurple posted... Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate? They probably do, but there's always the possibility of a false negative. Two layers of protection are better than one - if testing reduces the risk by (purely as example numbers) 90%, and filtering out high-risk people reduces the risk by 30%, doing both reduces the risk by 93%. That might sound like a small difference, but the impact of small changes in %s are pretty big whe the %s are close to 0 or 100 - in this case it'd mean that for every 10 that slipped through with testing alone, now only 7 are slipping through. (Disclaimer, this is a bit oversimplified, in particular it doesn't account for overlap between the groups. The general idea though, that two measures will catch more than one alone, still stands.) --- Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to Trumble look more like? <cite>Trumble posted [p:960971340] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>SSJPurple posted... </cite> <quote>Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate?</quote> They probably do, but there's always the possibility of a false negative. Two layers of protection are better than one - if testing reduces the risk by (purely as example numbers) 90%, and filtering out high-risk people reduces the risk by 30%, doing both reduces the risk by 93%. That might sound like a small difference, but the impact of small changes in %s are pretty big whe the %s are close to 0 or 100 - in this case it'd mean that for every 10 that slipped through with testing alone, now only 7 are slipping through. (Disclaimer, this is a bit oversimplified, in particular it doesn't account for overlap between the groups. The general idea though, that two measures will catch more than one alone, still stands.) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ColdOne666 12/16/21 3:04:10 PM #20:	Esrac posted... In the US, for example, gay men might make up 4% of the male population, but almost 70% of all HIV infections. (Please allow for some wiggle room for men who have had sex with other men, but don't identify as gay). When the disparity is that wide, a flat ban does seem to make sense. --- Aussie Aussie Aussie OI OI OI! <cite>ColdOne666 posted [p:960971467] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Esrac posted... </cite> <quote>In the US, for example, gay men might make up 4% of the male population, but almost 70% of all HIV infections. (Please allow for some wiggle room for men who have had sex with other men, but don't identify as gay). When the disparity is that wide, a flat ban does seem to make sense.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOtherMike 12/16/21 3:11:32 PM #21:	Esrac posted... I'm aware of the difference, but I dont think it really makes a significant difference. Homosexual men are banned because they have a disproportionate infection rate. They have a disproportionate infection rate, because they, as a demographic, disproportionatly engage in high risk sexual activity. Wrt sexual behavior and activity, gay (or straight for that matter) men (or women) are not a singular demographic. <cite>TheOtherMike posted [p:960971680] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Esrac posted... </cite> <quote>I'm aware of the difference, but I dont think it really makes a significant difference. Homosexual men are banned because they have a disproportionate infection rate. They have a disproportionate infection rate, because they, as a demographic, disproportionatly engage in high risk sexual activity.</quote> Wrt sexual behavior and activity, gay (or straight for that matter) men (or women) are not a singular demographic. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/16/21 3:48:16 PM #22:	SSJPurple posted... Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate? HIV can take over 6 months to turn up in testing --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:960972742] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>SSJPurple posted... </cite> <quote>Cant EVERYONES blood simply be tested to make sure its safe to donate?</quote>HIV can take over 6 months to turn up in testing </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kingdrake2 12/16/21 4:05:44 PM #23:	UnfairRepresent posted... HIV can take over 6 months to turn up in testing we're doomed. --- Explorers In The Further Regions Of Experience, demons to some, Angels To Others: Pinhead <cite>kingdrake2 posted [p:960973182] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>HIV can take over 6 months to turn up in testing</quote> we're doomed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FL81 12/16/21 4:28:08 PM #24:	nothanks1 posted... 'homosexuals' 'Canadian blood people' --- Thanks to Proofpyros for the sig images https://i.imgur.com/Nv4Pi1v.jpg https://i.imgur.com/N43HJYv.jpg <cite>FL81 posted [p:960973822] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>nothanks1 posted... </cite> <quote>'homosexuals'</quote>'Canadian blood people' </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xXfireglzXx 12/16/21 4:34:53 PM #25:	Do the Canadian Crips agree? --- Official ANCIENT Killer. I make account bets from time to time so either man up or shut up. The Quote is dedicated to those we have lost. <cite>xXfireglzXx posted [p:960973996] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Do the Canadian Crips agree? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#27	Post #27 was unavailable or deleted.
UnfairRepresent 12/19/21 6:17:35 AM #28:	kingdrake2 posted... we're doomed. This was the entire reason gay people were banned from donating blood in the first place. The argument was there is really no way to safely test whether people who were having frequent anal sex were carrying HIV due to the fact it can not turn up in testing for over 6 months after you get it. The counterargument has been then ban people who have frequent anal sex, not just a blanket ban on gay people. The counter counterargument is how do you know they're not just lying. https://youtu.be/oI-poDIZ3-0 And here we are --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:961041184] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>kingdrake2 posted... </cite> <quote>we're doomed.</quote>This was the entire reason gay people were banned from donating blood in the first place. The argument was there is really no way to safely test whether people who were having frequent anal sex were carrying HIV due to the fact it can not turn up in testing for over 6 months after you get it. The counterargument has been then ban people who have frequent anal sex, not just a blanket ban on gay people. The counter counterargument is how do you know they're not just lying. https://youtu.be/oI-poDIZ3-0 And here we are </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sir Will 12/19/21 11:06:36 AM #29:	I really don't think the length is 6 months with better modern tests. --- River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer' <cite>Sir Will posted [p:961044664] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>I really don't think the length is 6 months with better modern tests. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jx1010 12/19/21 11:22:32 AM #30:	Tropicalwood posted... Blood people? They're called vampires. Exactly. TC vampires dont have feelings, u can call them out. Dracula doesnt live in canada too so ur good. --- Gaming is a weird industry where you can scam the consumers with lies and fake promises, and there will still be fanboys defending it. <cite>Jx1010 posted [p:961044948] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Tropicalwood posted... </cite> <quote>Blood people? They're called vampires.</quote>Exactly. TC vampires dont have feelings, u can call them out. Dracula doesnt live in canada too so ur good. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/19/21 12:30:01 PM #31:	Sir Will posted... I really don't think the length is 6 months with better modern tests. Canada is not going to pay for every single blood donor to have a NAT test. And that can still take over a month to show up after infection. --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:961046435] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Sir Will posted... </cite> <quote>I really don't think the length is 6 months with better modern tests.</quote> Canada is not going to pay for every single blood donor to have a NAT test. And that can still take over a month to show up after infection. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sir Will 12/19/21 1:15:23 PM #32:	UnfairRepresent posted... Canada is not going to pay for every single blood donor to have a NAT test. Pretty sure they test in batches. And they do seem to use NAT tests: https://www.blood.ca/en/about-us/nucleic-acid-amplification-testing-nat-hepatitis-c --- River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer' <cite>Sir Will posted [p:961047613] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>Canada is not going to pay for every single blood donor to have a NAT test.</quote>Pretty sure they test in batches. And they do seem to use NAT tests: https://www.blood.ca/en/about-us/nucleic-acid-amplification-testing-nat-hepatitis-c </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#33	Post #33 was unavailable or deleted.
#34	Post #34 was unavailable or deleted.
XxAxem_BlackxX 12/21/21 7:41:44 AM #35:	"Backed by research." Oh yeah, I'm sure that's totally the reason they want to end the ban and not because they're offended at gays being discriminated against. <cite>XxAxem_BlackxX posted [p:961096935] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>"Backed by research." Oh yeah, I'm sure that's totally the reason they want to end the ban and not because they're offended at gays being discriminated against. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
yusiko 12/21/21 8:36:34 AM #36:	around 10 years ago african american women were also high risk factors for having HIV yet their was never a ban for them so the ban was always rather bigoted --- yusketeer <cite>yusiko posted [p:961097652] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>around 10 years ago african american women were also high risk factors for having HIV yet their was never a ban for them so the ban was always rather bigoted </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PBusted 12/23/21 12:38:27 AM #37:	XxAxem_BlackxX posted... "Backed by research." Oh yeah, I'm sure that's totally the reason they want to end the ban and not because they're offended at gays being discriminated against. You think that gay people are scientifically more likely to causes diseases? And that it would be valid to discriminate them? <cite>PBusted posted [p:961146555] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>XxAxem_BlackxX posted... </cite> <quote>"Backed by research." Oh yeah, I'm sure that's totally the reason they want to end the ban and not because they're offended at gays being discriminated against.</quote> You think that gay people are scientifically more likely to causes diseases? And that it would be valid to discriminate them? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shablagoo 12/25/21 4:36:46 AM #39:	Esrac posted... They target homosexual men, or more specifically men who have had sex with other men, because they tend to have a wildly disproportionate HIV infection rate. In the US, for example, gay men might make up 4% of the male population, but almost 70% of all HIV infections. (Please allow for some wiggle room for men who have had sex with other men, but don't identify as gay). When the disparity is that wide, a flat ban does seem to make sense. Its closer to 50% of all HIV infections and only 1 out of 5 gay men have it (at the highest estimate) so it actually makes 1,000x more sense to just test everyones blood because anyones blood could potentially have problems, regardless of sexuality. A blanket ban doesnt make sense to me at all. --- "if i was a woman i would mail kyle rittenhouse my panties." ~ledbowman "Out of those two? Racist for me... easily." ~Vicious_Dios <cite>Shablagoo posted [p:961198162] in Canadian b... [t:79813325]...</cite> <quote>Esrac posted... </cite> <quote>They target homosexual men, or more specifically men who have had sex with other men, because they tend to have a wildly disproportionate HIV infection rate. In the US, for example, gay men might make up 4% of the male population, but almost 70% of all HIV infections. (Please allow for some wiggle room for men who have had sex with other men, but don't identify as gay). When the disparity is that wide, a flat ban does seem to make sense.</quote> Its closer to 50% of all HIV infections and only 1 out of 5 gay men have it (at the highest estimate) so it actually makes 1,000x more sense to just test everyones blood because anyones blood could potentially have problems, regardless of sexuality. A blanket ban doesnt make sense to me at all. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Canadian blood people recommend ending ban on homosexuals donating blood. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Canadian blood people recommend ending ban on homosexuals donating blood.