Moral Quandry - Solidarity, or potentially save a life?

I had intended to give blood this week.

The night before I was swapping schedules with a friend to figure out when to meet up the next day. When I told him about the blood donation he asked if I was eligible as I'd "had a good time" over the holidays. That hadn't occurred to me, so I read the guidance.

As it turned out I was not eligible due to a tattoo I got in December. Damn...so I read on to see if there were other disqualifying factors once my 12 months was up only to find this:

While I will be eligible come next December I'm no longer sure if I want to...so...

Do I donate anyway and potentially save a life, or do I boycott a discriminatory system and shout the reasoning for this decision from the rooftops?

 

I'm confused. You seem to be confusing reasonable safety precautions with discrimination. Condoms are not 100%. I am not against gay relationships or sex in anyway but this, to me, seems to be a way of reducing the risk of cross infections (although I'm not sure why there needs to be the oral bit as surely this would apply to women as well).

As for the morality of boycotting it, well, which is worse for you, your values being offended or not helping a dying person.

 

People need blood. Those in need of blood need the blood and quite frankly couldn't give a toss where it comes from.

Is it discriminatory? Probably. It was no doubt added when the 'gay men transmit aids' was a popular fear. Should this clause be removed? Probably, if the medical peeps confirm it's as bogus as it sounds (I'm sure they will). I don't know the statistics of HIV/Hepatitis rate in the male gay populace compared to both genders in the hetrosexual populace. Without the figures I wouldn't make a call. (And this comes from someone who while isn't male is most certainly gay)

Will you not donating make a damn bit of a difference to the policy? NO!

Will you not donating negatively affect the health of someone? Maybe.

Will you campaigning for a fair update to the rules make a difference? Maybe... how good at campaigning are you?

Disclaimer : My mum needed an emergency blood transfusion last week.

 

Angel, the policy is out of line with the rest of the UK where, like the tattoo, 12 months is considered a reasonable time to allow infections to take hold after "risky" sexual practises. (Remembering all people, not just gay men, can get Hep C and HIV)

Our Health Minister, Edwin Poots, is the religious zealout who enacted this policy, which turns out to be in violation of the ministerial code. We also import blood from other parts of the UK that do not have these discriminatory rules, completely undermining the safety argument.

 

Donate blood. No one is denied from recieving your donation, and you will almost certainly be helping someone by doing so.

 

Overriding principle applies: what is more important: to help save a life or to change a discriminatory system?

 

The thing is that if my vocal boycott could contribute to drawing attention to, and changing, the rules it would widen the pool of potential blood donors in the region, also reducing the need to import and thus deprive the mainland UK of it's blood stocks.

If a boycott does expedite change it could potentially save more lives than my single donation. In other words, many may be denied by conforming to a discriminatory, exclusive system - including Guinevere's mum

 

It's a fair point. I agree too, I think a blood screening procedure is a could thing to do for all blood samples, no matter who it came from.

I think this is one of those arguments that seems reasonable on the face of it and is thereby accepted easily with no outcry but on discrimination is, as you say discriminatory.

If nothing else, you have forced me to think a bit harder and as such I agree with you.

 

By the way - as noted in one of the above linked articles the decision was deferred to the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, over 6 months ago and he hasn't yet answered what is essentially a yes/no question.

So, if you're in the UK (particularly in South-West Surrey) and support a change in NI law that reduces the pressure on your own blood reserves he is the man to contact - http://www.jeremyhunt.org/

 

Overriding principle still applies. Saving a life in the immediate term is more important than the hypothetical lives you may possibly save in the long term.

 

There is no immediate term. I'm still disqualified for reasons I agree with until December. Come December I know what I'm going to do, but a question presented in the first person, and the ensuing discussion invests others more than a statement of intent - And no, I'm not telling, I just wondered if I could be convinced otherwise.

 

When you get to the point where you can donate, you are faced with the decision whether you will. Before then it's academic. At that point the immediate benefit to patients of your donation trumps the hypothetical benefit that might come in the long term if you withhold it.

In any case, this is not an easy issue. In the 80's to 90's a lot of blood products were inadequately screened (partly because the technology did not exist), and a lot of people who depended on them, such as haemophiliacs, got infected with all sorts of stuff: HIV, Hepatitis A, B and C, possibly even CjD. I've met one or two --they were wheelchair bound and suffer from all sorts of auto-immune syndromes and medical complications. Their bodies are spectacularly FUBARed. They are still pursuing compensation --preferably before the last of them dies. The NHS and government are still kind of in denial about all these problems and trying to avoid accountability. So yeah, I can imagine that blood banks are really paranoid and overcautious now.

 

Last head count suggested the globe is a tad overpopulated. You don't owe anybody any blood. 'Saving lives' is very heroic an'all, but in a time when competition for energy, food, water, affordable shelter etc. is at its highest and getting higher, 'saving lives' could be argued as counter-productive.

Remember, you're not 'saving' life, you're just extending it. But for what purpose?

There's a lot of warm, fuzzy, 'hero' propaganda surrounding blood donation, but bear in mind it's marketed like that because it's somebody's job to increase blood reserves. The first recorded human blood transfusion wasn't until 1818, and blood groups weren't identified until 1900 - we managed as a species to survive ok before that indicating it is not an essential activity.

Or,

Instead of spending an hour giving blood. do an extra hours work somewhere and donate the money you make to a charity that claims it can do more with your £10 than your blood donation could achieve.

Regarding the man-to-man aspect, is it really discriminatory? What are they missing out on? Are they being disadvantaged?

 

"Dead babies are never a solution to any problem" --Jeffrey Sachs

Let's can all the trite overpopulation arguments, because when it's you or yours on the operating table, you just want them to live. So do other people, and they are not less important than you. So giving blood is a good thing. Everything else is self-indulgent, conceited navel gazing.

 

More thoughts later...right now I just took a break from binge-watching a box set while I wait for something to cook, but for now...

Governmental culpability isn't the issue here - Poots is a member of the DUP, the party born of Paisley's Old Testament fire and brimstone brand of Presbyterianism. In addition to a lifetime ban on gay blood they also oppose gay marriage, gay adoption, anything gay really. We have the same screening procedures as England, Scotland and Wales; The only difference is the insistence that gay men have a lifetime ban from blood donation. If we didn't import gay blood from the UK mainland I would say you have a point, Nexxo, but we do...Exposing this quirk as an exercise of political oppression.

 

Over here they changed the regulation to no gay sex within the last 5 or 10 years (I forget which)

Oh, and ALL blood donations are now screened for HIV, Hepatitis, etc etc, so the existing restrictions are really fairly pointless, but it's about preserving the appearance of integrity rather than the actual integrity which is guaranteed through the testing.

 

You heard it here everybody. It's definitive. We may as well make blood donation mandatory if that's the case.

So can we get some more definitive guidance? Is not giving blood a bad thing?

 

Dude, dude, dude...this is Nexxo you're dealing with. I wouldn't attempt to support your argument by appeal to a logical fallacy

 

My point is that I've never found myself in a position to acquire definitive guidance on morality before. As Nexxo is now dispensing I figure I may as well stock up.

While we're on the subject of fallacies, which seems to be the mot du jour around here, would Nexxo's post not be classed as an appeal to authority fallacy?

 

Surely the question is here is "what is the basis of the exclusion principle?". Is it a hang up from the 80's or 90's and something people mindlessly go a long with or are there numbers to back it up?

Once that's been determined the ethical element can be discussed properly.