Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 156
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So why not screen for past behavior instead of a sexuality? Do you want to accept the hetero that utilizes prostitutes over the gay male that's been in a monogomous relationship for years?
    Certainly not - but it is unreasonable to look at each individual case. Overall policies are designed to deal with large numbers. Take my business for example - the "rules" pertaining to who qualifies for a loan are based on generalities. That doesn't mean exceptions are not made, but it does mean there is a framework through which we work.

    Policies are made to minimize risk - not eliminate it on a case by case basis. Your question of screening for past behavior would dictate a need to review each case individually.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So why not screen for past behavior instead of a sexuality?
    Baby steps!
    How many government sanctioned policies transform overnight?
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Do you want to accept the hetero that utilizes prostitutes over the gay male that's been in a monogomous relationship for years?
    I would prefer ZERO risk participants, but I do believe the male that has utilized a prostitutes to be of lower risk.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Your question of screening for past behavior would dictate a need to review each case individually.
    Which is certainly justified, after the initial blanket screening.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    but I do believe the male that has utilized a prostitutes to be of lower risk.
    OOOOOOOO.....that's a hard pull for me....
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Certainly not - but it is unreasonable to look at each individual case. Overall policies are designed to deal with large numbers. Take my business for example - the "rules" pertaining to who qualifies for a loan are based on generalities. That doesn't mean exceptions are not made, but it does mean there is a framework through which we work.

    Policies are made to minimize risk - not eliminate it on a case by case basis. Your question of screening for past behavior would dictate a need to review each case individually.
    By asking someone what their sexuality is, you are making an individual case basis.

    Also, by throwing up a banner saying "no gays", you are encouraging discrimination at an institutional level.

    Their is no REAL science behind this decision.

    The truly logical method would be to hold samples for 6 months and then test donors for HIV then allow the speciman into the donor pool. Why do anything less?
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Baby steps!
    I would prefer ZERO risk participants, but I do believe the male that has utilized a prostitutes to be of lower risk.
    Ouchy! Try visiting certain African countries and India right now and say that. No, not the US but there's plenty of HIV in prostitution in the US.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ouchy! Try visiting certain African countries and India right now and say that. No, not the US but there's plenty of HIV in prostitution in the US.
    Wow - you and I agree on something
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ouchy! Try visiting certain African countries and India right now and say that. No, not the US but there's plenty of HIV in prostitution in the US.
    I see what your saying. Are we talkin street whores or established regulated businesses? Keep in mind I don't live in an area like Seattle where Heroin and other injectables is the driving force behind prostitution. So when I think prostitution my initial thoughts are not the puss ridden undead walking the street.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    By asking someone what their sexuality is, you are making an individual case basis.

    Also, by throwing up a banner saying "no gays", you are encouraging discrimination at an institutional level.

    Their is no REAL science behind this decision.

    The truly logical method would be to hold samples for 6 months and then test donors for HIV then allow the speciman into the donor pool. Why do anything less?
    Wouldn't that be redundant? There are, afterall, many, many studies related to HIV, risk factors, contraction incidents, etc.

    And asking about ones sexuality is not an individual case basis but rather a manner in which to follow policy - like asking if someone has filed bankruptcy or not.

    Case by case would be not only asking sexuality but also delving into more particulars that would allow for a single individual to be screened and accepted or rejected based on their personal circumstances.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I see what your saying. Are we talkin street whores or established regulated businesses? Keep in mind I don't live in an area like Seattle where Heroin and other injectables is the driving force behind prostitution. So when I think prostitution my initial thoughts are not the puss ridden undead walking the street.
    Actually, the leading addiction which leads to prostitution is crack followed by meth. Heroin addicts don't tend to be predominate in the prostitute ranks.
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Wouldn't that be redundant? There are, afterall, many, many studies related to HIV, risk factors, contraction incidents, etc.

    And asking about ones sexuality is not an individual case basis but rather a manner in which to follow policy - like asking if someone has filed bankruptcy or not.

    Case by case would be not only asking sexuality but also delving into more particulars that would allow for a single individual to be screened and accepted or rejected based on their personal circumstances.
    To which my response would be, are you unfairly excluding a great deal of people NOT because of their behavior but because of their sexuality. And is that fair? And does that not lend itself to discrimination, on a wholesale level?

    To which I will add, would not the simple process of hold-test 6 months later-release, not address everyone across the board?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Actually, the leading addiction which leads to prostitution is crack followed by meth. Heroin addicts don't tend to be predominate in the prostitute ranks.
    See? I don't even know which drug it is Thats how unconscious I am of that environment.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    To which my response would be, are you unfairly excluding a great deal of people NOT because of their behavior but because of their sexuality. And is that fair? And does that not lend itself to discrimination, on a wholesale level?

    To which I will add, would not the simple process of hold-test 6 months later-release, not address everyone across the board?

    Actually no, IMO it is not unfairly excluding a great deal of people as based on studies, these particular people make up the highest risk catagory. And we're not talking about a small degree of difference between this catagory and the next closest catagory - this particular catagory is leaps and bounds ahead of all others in this particular measure.

    And afterall, we're not dealing with drivers licenses or some other mundane item, we're dealing with the life of a child and it's mother. An abundance of caution, IMO, should be the path taken here.
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Actually no, IMO it is not unfairly excluding a great deal of people as based on studies, these particular people make up the highest risk catagory. And we're not talking about a small degree of difference between this catagory and the next closest catagory - this particular catagory is leaps and bounds ahead of all others in this particular measure.

    And afterall, we're not dealing with drivers licenses or some other mundane item, we're dealing with the life of a child and it's mother. An abundance of caution, IMO, should be the path taken here.
    Actually, IV drug users make up the highest risk group. I didn't see the FDA saying they couldn't donate. AND even if they did, we're still talking about honest answers from the donater.

    Just fawking hold for 6 months and test. That covers EVERYONE! Not very complicated.

    (gotta tend my road rash and sleep)
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    (gotta tend my road rash )
    Whats the point? Its not like any infections have a possibility of getting in there anyway.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Whats the point? Its not like any infections have a possibility of getting in there anyway.
    It's not for infection. It's to avoid scarring. Wouldn't want that on my pretty self.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's not for infection. It's to avoid scarring. Wouldn't want that on my pretty self.
    God NO you wouldn't want that
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Don't blood donor places do the same thing?
    Good question.. can anybody answer that?
    never mind found it:
    http://www.transfusionguidelines.org...=12&pageid=391
    Why do we ask gay men not to give blood?

    We ask gay men not to give blood because gay men, as a group, are known to be at an increased risk of acquiring HIV and a number of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), many of which are carried in the blood.

    It is specific behaviours, rather than being gay, which places gay men at increased risk of HIV infection.Safer sex will keep most gay men free from infection,however research shows that allowing gay men as a group to donate blood would increase the risk of HIV infected blood entering the blood supply.
    Wouldn't make more sense to screen on unprotected sex in general?
    If you want to be save, filter those out and you are sure it is safe..
    It would probably lead to filtering out the majority of donors so maybe you should refine it to unprotected sex except in in a monogamous relation for more than X years.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #59  
    Did somebody say **** sex? mmmmm....**** sex
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  20.    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Did somebody say **** sex? mmmmm....**** sex
    Uh, now we know where your username came from.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions