Just say gay
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
I would however add an additional risk factor to this mix:
Blood transfusions, specifically if they use blood from those at risk groups. We've seen them just recently remove barriers for donating blood from gay people.
Blood donation bans against men who have sex with men should have never been removed, as Monkeypox proved : they are always two steps ahead in spreading unknown blood-borne diseases due to hyper-promiscuity.
It took decades to figure there was a new problem, and how to test for HIV in blood donations, and discover the ''window period'' ( test negative, still infectious ). Hundreds of thousands of victims got infected from tainted blood in the meanwhile.
There will be a new HIV-like deadly disease with long incubation at some point. And we removed the most effective barrier to this new disease getting into the blood banks.
The whining of ''stigmatizing people for who they are'' always pissed me off.
It's accurate risk-management based on BEHAVIOR.
I was never banned from donating blood, because I do not have sex.
Fee-feels shouldn't matter more than the safety of patients recieving blood.
I've been banned from donating blood before, because I ate beef in Britain during one of the mad cow scares.
Neato, I'm not in a country where they pay you to donate blood, it is 100% just a voluntary "nice thing to do" thing. They don't want it? That just saves more blood for myself. No pain, no tiredness, no lightheadedness, no other side-effects, no risks of embolisms or other risks whenever a needle goes in you. Just plusses to not donating blood, really, if the rest of the population is still doing it.
I don't have encephalitis (mad cow disease), I've been checked, but they want to stay safe just in case, and that's just fine with me. Less risk to me, less risk to the future receivers. I don't see why this other group is whining over it, it's just net profit.