More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophy on leadership as it relates to policing
11 principles of leadership police
LAW AND POLITICS morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Britain the current legislation on this issue is that no man who has had sex with another man (MSM) in the last 12 months may donate blood. This is a change from the previous law which stated that no MSM may ever donate blood (the lifelong ban was lifted in 2011 after the government decided, upon hearing a scientific review of this issue. The original ban was put into place in the early 1980’s after the public scare over the AIDS crisis first began. This was to stop HIV infections from occurring from blood transfusions which, having the highest risk of transmission of HIV (90%).
It seems to me increasingly anarchic that in a society that is increasingly liberal and accepting, that legislation should still exist that effectively discriminates against one section of itself. I feel that there are three main arguments in favour of this issue, which are : that it is not morally right to deny people their opportunity to give blood , that there are practical benefits to
…show more content…
allowing them to donate and lastly, that it would have lasting politically beneficial effects on the standing of any country that enacted it. Firstly, I do not see how one can possibly justify the exclusion of healthy and even ideal donors from doing their part to help others. If a MSM can show that he has limited his risk of contracting HIV and has be recently tested and found to be clear of the virus, it seems unjust that they should not be permitted to give blood. Although the rates of HIV infection are much higher in the MSM population ( around 5%) compared with that of the heterosexual population (.2% generally and .59% in central London) there should not be a blanket ban on all MSM for 12 months after they last had sex. Other risk factors and habits should be taken into account; for example, most people would agree that the a promiscuous heterosexual man has a higher chance of contracting HIV than a gay man who has been tested as HIV negative and is in a committed monogamous relationship with another man, also HIV negative. In this case it is unjust that the heterosexual man, being at a greater risk, is allowed to donate blood without verification whereas the gay man is not. I believe that the current law should be changed to allow a sexually active MSM to donate blood if he is in a low risk situation and has been tested and found to be HIV negative, otherwise the moral injustice over this discrepancy is simply discrimination and therefore illegal. In Britain, the NHS requires, on average, 7,000 units of blood a day to be donated. By allowing MSM to donate blood the number of such donations would vastly increase. While critics may say that as gay men only make up 1.5% of the total population this would not have that great of an impact, I would answer by saying that; only 4% of people currently donate blood. If they were allowed to donate blood, MSM would feel it to be their duty to fulfil this urgent need for donated blood; as previously they have been denied this right, it is easy to see that many such men would donate blood. Currently only 14% of people who do donate blood are under 30 (the most suitable age range for donors) however 4.2% of men under 30 consider themselves to be gay, and therefore this effect would have an even greater impact in this critical age range. By brining this debate to the foreground, the urgent need for donated blood would become more prominent, and therefore the number of people who donated blood would increase. Therefore, as allowing MSM to donate blood even if they have had sex in the last 12 months, would increase the number of people donating, both MSM and the public who learn about the need for such donors from the news. Thirdly, by allowing MSM to donate blood, we show ourselves to be a more tolerant nation that is also scientifically minded.
This ban was originally brought enacted right at the start of the AIDS panic, when we had no reliable and fast way of checking for HIV, and this was therefore a necessary step to stop infected blood entering out blood banks then. This is however no longer the case as we understand how HIV is transmitted much better now and can detect it much more easily and quickly, therefore why would any rational and forward thinking nation refuse to allow such people to donate blood if they help people? Our politicians have increasingly been called “out of touch” by the younger generations, and given that gay rights is an issue (of which this is a part) which they have shown their support for in earnest this would be a way for our political leadership to show itself capable of following scientific evidence rather than sticking to historical precedent in spite of compelling
evidence. Opposing arguments to this movement primarily concern themselves with minimising the risk of other infections occurring because of blood transfusions. In 2010, a scientific review found that after a 12 month deferral period the risk of accidental infection was one in 4.38 million donations, (given that 500,000 people receive transfusions every year this equates to 1 infection every 9 years) and without any time limit the risk to be one in 3.48 million 1 infection every 7 years. As there is no definite proof that allowing MSM to donate blood will increase the number of donations, and that HIV is incurable, this increase of about 20% relative risk is too much to place upon people. Especially as many people receive large numbers of transfusions for chronic conditions which raises their risk of exposure to unacceptably high levels. It could be said that it is not morally wrong to ban MSM from donating blood for 12 months because they still have the opportunity to donate blood if they so wish, the deferral period is only to reduce the risk to other. As many hospitals struggle to reach even a three day blood stockpile, it would be impossible to ask them to store five times that amount. They would have to if they were to check each sample for HIV in order to allow MSM to donate blood without a deferral time period. This shift would be too great a cost for hospitals that the blood service is only viable if the blood can be treated as clean after it has been given, to do which, the risk is too high if MSM donate blood without this 12 month deferral period. Perhaps the most powerful argument against this debate is the history of mess-ups in the British blood transfusion system. For example, in 2010 it was reported that over a period of about 3 years from 4,670 British haemophiliacs ( who have to have blood transfusions on a regular basis) had been infected with Hep C and 1,243 with HIV , because of mistakes made by mixing samples of blood together in the supply chains. While we must endeavour to make sure that such things never happen again, the likelihood is that blood mixing will occur again. The consequences of such a mistake are so great that they outweigh the benefits of allowing MSM to donate blood without a deferral period, and the suffering of these people who have been infected outweighs the perceived unjust treatment of any men who have sex with other men.
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
2. People should give blood because it is easy and though there might be a little pain involved it is worth it because it saves so many lives and you get great snacks.
HIV has had a dramatic effect on the history screening and testing of blood donations. Since May 1985 all blood donated in the United States received testing for HIV antibodies, p 354. Still there are cases of negligence when the collection of blood is done. In 1983, a blood center knowing that blood from homosexual and bisexual men should not be accepted. The blood center even had a written policy stating that donors who volunteer that they are gay should not be allowed to give. In the case of, J.K & Susie L. Wadley Research Inst. v. Beeson, Mr. B a patient received several units of blood from the blood center during his surgery. Mr. B later going back to the hospital for being sick tested positive for HIV and his wife tested positive. At trial, damages of $800,000 were awarded to Mr. B’s widow. Failing to follow their policy cost a significant amount of money. Patients...
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
“A man who has had sex with another man within the last five years, whether oral or anal sex, with or without a condom or other form of protection, is not permitted to donate blood and must please not do so.”
The blood ban was first adopted during the early 80's because many people were inadvertently infected with H.I.V and AIDs through blood transfusions. Blood agencies faced mounting pressure from the infected and their families to place and maintain a ban stopping homosexuals from donating blood as to stop the spread of the infections. Supporters of this policy believe that the ban should remain in place. A premise for their conclusion is the belief that gay men have high risk sexual behaviors that place others in danger when they donate blood. According to Rachel Lakes's review of MSM blood donation ban: (In)equality, gay rights and discrimination under Charter), high risk sexual behavior is defined as having unprotected intercourse without con...
...e identifies the need for improvement not in the distribution of the organs available for transplant, but in the education of policy and regulating agencies on diversity, multiculturalism and ethics that need to be applied prior to approaching the general public and asking them to become organ donors for the good of everyone.
When I was younger I know that there was a specific reason that I chose to not be a donor even a donor of blood. I felt as though if I was to give some part of myself to another person the idea that the person might turn into a clone. The thought of having another “Raymond” out in the world terrified me. I assumed whoever would receive my blood would one day wake up to realize that they were no longer who they set out to be, but rather the transfusion have made them into someone unrecognizable.
By donating blood to insure there is enough in supply, the life we save may be our own.
First of all, selling organs shouldn’t be legal for two main reasons, which are saving lives and stop people from selling organs illegally in the black market. The world should understand that in many cases if someone didn’t get the organ they need they will suffer and have to die in some cases. This doesn’t means that the donors will have to give up their lives but, they can and will live healthy. For example if someone is dyeing and in need of a kidney and there is no chance for that person to live unless he gets one. Legalizing selling organs will saves this person’s life because he would easily buy an organ and complete the rest of his life without and problems. But in the case of that kidney that is in need, other people could sell theirs without having and problems that would affect them. Humans have two kidneys and one kidney that wills saves other person live is going to kill this person or even hurts.
In two cases, decided three years apart, blood transfusions were decided to be invasive and therefore greatly violative of bodily integrity. In re Brown, 294 Ill.App.3d 159, 171 (1997). Logically this would cause the parens patrie power of the State to be less effective. However, Brown has not been cited for the blood transfusion determination since it was handed down. It even conflicts with a case in the same appellate district that found blood transfusions to be a “relatively non-invasive and risk-free procedure” especially as compared to a caesarean section. In re Baby Boy Doe, 260 Ill.App.3d 392, 402 (1994). While the case law is conflicting, giving grounds for a judge to possibly choose between the determinations, Baby Boy Doe did leave the determination of whether or not a non-invasive blood transfusion may be forced upon a religiously objecting person by a court. Id. Depending on how the court wishes to proceed, Brown might have answered that
The medical field is under attack. At least, that is what many individuals in the medical field seem to believe. Unfortunately, supply fails to meet expectations, as demand increases due to certain medical procedures. It is so evident that there is a disparity between blood that is in need and blood that is donated. In order to narrow this gap, opportunities to donate blood should be required for eligible donors.
Blood donation is a very essential procedure in the health system. The process entails collecting blood from willing donors, testing it and then separating it into its components so that it can be used on patients. Whereas hospitals are the main users of the donated blood, they are not exactly authorised to collect, test and separate it in their own premises. Most of the health institutions get the blood from larger bodies such as the Red Cross or other Community based blood groups. Though initially faced with lots of problems, blood transfusion has been used since 1667 as a solution to some of human illnesses. Since then to now, hospitals have grown so dependent on blood donation and transfusion to save human life. With it being used and applied
In 1968, the first law was passed regarding donations of organs. Since then many other laws, amendments, and acts have been passed to define organ donation. These laws are to protect the donor and to assure the donation process was fair and non prejudice in any way. In the 1980’s laws and acts were expanded to further expand the laws defining organ transplant. Most recently, there has been legislation to improve the access for those needing
Over the past weeks through given the blood donation, lectures I have attended and research I have carried out, I learnt a considerable amount about the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, the blood collection process and the overall importance of the blood that is donated. I learnt that my blood doesn’t just help people in accidence but also that the platelets can assist people that have cancer while also saving new-born babies. I also learnt that given blood is not tough, hard or scary but the overall experience is a positive one. Above all the fact that my blood can save life’s is by far the utmost critical fact I learnt from the past weeks.