De Construction of IBTS Arguements

These are bits from the IBTS website:QuoteQ. Why does the IBTS not accept donations from men who have sex with men?A. In line with all blood transfusion services in the developed world, theIBTS refuses to accept blood donations from men who have had oral or analsex with another male. This policy was first introduced in the early 1980swhen it became apparent that HIV could be spread by blood transfusions, andat a time when gay men represented the largest identifiable source of HIVtransmission. The introduction of the ban on gay men was adopted before atest for HIV infection in blood donors was developed, and was verysuccessful in reducing transmission of HIV from transfusions.Right, so they are confirming that the ban was put in place at a time ofpanic and before testing. Good.But they continue:QuoteThis policy causes considerable offence: it is clearly discriminatoryagainst gay men, and categorises all gay men as being at increased risk ofHIV; it has also been criticised because it seems to single out gay men tothe exclusion of other groups in the community who also have an increasedrisk of acquiring HIV. In recent years heterosexual females have overtakenIV drug users and homosexual men as the largest group of new HIV cases inIreland.The IBTS accepts that they are being discriminatory; we discriminateagainst several groups in the community insofar as we refuse to allow themto donate blood on the basis of perceived increased risk of spreadinginfections through blood transfusion. These include anyone who has everbeen injected with non-prescribed drugs, anyone who has engaged in sex forwhich they have been paid with money or drugs, people who have lived inBritain or Northern Ireland between 1980 and 1996 (because of the vCJDrisk), people who have been in prison in the previous year, and severalother categories.Right, so they are saying they are discriminating but saying they are doingit for the safety of the population and they do exclude other groups. Thatalmost sounds good, doesn't it ?But here is where it gets interesting and they catch themselves out:QuoteQ. But what about testing?A. While the testing currently used by the IBTS is the most sensitiveavailable, no test can reliably detect HIV infection in the first ten daysafter someone has become infected. This means that a person who donatesblood soon after becoming infected with HIV can transmit the infection evenif the test for HIV is negative. For this reason all persons who areidentifiably at increased risk of HIV are excluded. (Most of theheterosexual females who developed HIV infection in recent years would havebeen rejected as blood donors on the basis of residency in sub-SaharanAfrica or other identifiable risk.)The window of non-detection is 10 days. After that they can pick it up. So,something like a year ban would be good enough one would think.QuoteHIV in the West appeared first among gay men in the eighties and had spreadwidely in the gay community before the nature of the threat was appreciatedor understood. This indicates that men who have sex with men may constituteone route in the future through which a new disease, transmissible by bloodtransfusions, could find its way into the community before it isdetectable. While heterosexual activity also represents a significant routeof transmission now, the extensive spread of HIV through heterosexualactivity in the West was considerably slower, and occurred predominantlyafter the disease was understood and methods to prevent its spread had beenidentified.And there we have the homophobia. In other words "You got a bad diseasebefore and you might again. We don't trust you or your kind. You aredangerous and a threat"It is this attitude which is homophobia. To exclude someone on theirsexuality and because down the line they may be prone to some new unknownvirus is highly controversial and just plain wrong. If all Germans werebanned from visiting France because in the past *some* of them invaded thecountry and there is no guarantee that they may not again there would beoutrage and everyone would agree it's wrong. But because it's the filthygays being blanket banned it's ok in some quarters.QuoteQ. Why can't you evaluate gay men on the same basis as heterosexual people?A. It is arguable that the total ban on men who have had sex with menshould be replaced by exclusion on the basis of activity rather than genderpreference. Up to a point the ban is on the basis of activity – someone whois gay but has never had oral or anal sex with another male is not bannedfrom donating blood.Nevertheless it is true that the blood transfusion community uses a veryblunt approach to the problem – but at present we know that this approachhas been successful in the past, and is likely to provide the best level ofprotection to patients in the future should a new but similarly insidiousform of infection appear again.It worked before they said, but above they said they put in the ban costhey had no testing in place. Now that they have the ability to test andhave backup testing in place they should be able to start including pepleagain. They used the word "insidious" there. That's a nice swipe.QuoteViruses can cause lethal infection with latent periods longer than ten orfifteen years. If a time limit were to be set so that men who had had sexwith men in the past could be reinstated as donors after a period ofabstinence, then that time limit would likely be very long.They say "yeah we could allow some people but the ban would be very long."So, it's a start, its a sign that you trust us in some small way.QuoteThe United States has recently modified its ban on gay men, to men who havehad sex with another male at any time since 1977. This means that gay menare accepted if they have been abstinent throughout the last 26 years. Itis possible that the Europeans would consider such a move in the future;however the practical consequences are likely to be minimal.And here they state that the 26 year time limit is so long they might notget anyone, so they'll not put it in place. They have no scientific reasonfor this exclusion so therefore it is nothing but indirect discriminationdue to laziness.