Health Canada bashes Gays

[morefngdbs]

It seems the level of intelligence has sunk to a new low .
Health Canada has decided that Gay men who have had sexual relations in the last 5 years are no longer allowed to offer their organs up for donation. While this decission isn't as repressive as the one where gays cannot give blood if they have had sex since 1977. It's still very far reaching & could easily take healthy organs away from a system that is desperate to get them.
Doesn't matter that doctors are against the idea as we (the medical system) now routinely check for HIV & a host of other possible problems.
Doesn't matter if the they have been in a monogamous relationship are married etc.
Does anyone else feel like this is over the top?
Every doner is always checked no matter who they are & if there is a problem their organs blood etc is rejected. By eliminating these people from trying to help others who are in dire straits , seems especially harsh.
Does anyone else have this practice where they live?
Do you believe it is right, not just on the possiboility that it discriminates against gays, but to the possible recipient as well!
the poitical cartoon is slightly macabre

[SEXY-FETUS]

We've had this discussion over the blood donation issue. Go look up one of those threads replace words where needed and you have this thread.
There saved ya a whole lot of time.

[Drakim]

It's clearly a good decision. We can't allow our children to get GAY ORGANS.

[cellardoor6]

Link maybe?

Anyway, could the reason be that gay people are at higher risk for certain diseases?

[SEXY-FETUS]

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8132 43
There all the debate all the statistics put together on why theres a higher health risk.

[Drakim]

At 1/10/08 12:59 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8132 43
There all the debate all the statistics put together on why theres a higher health risk.

First of all, as it was pointed out, you are still tested for various things before they use your organ.

Secondly, there is an organ shortage.

But, why do we never see the same logic applied to for example black people? They have, on average, a higher percentage of AIDS than white people. Shouldn't they be blocked too?

Heck, shouldn't poor people be blocked out? They have a higher chance of most unhealthy things than rich people.

[Brick-top]

Who wants bright pink organs with unicorns on them anyway?

[morefngdbs]

At 1/10/08 12:59 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: There all the debate all the statistics put together on why theres a higher health risk.

;
Once there wasn't any where near the level of testing done on blood as there is now SEXY_DEAD_FETUS
(c'mon what can be sexier than that?)

Organ donation has never been as blase.
There is teating on the donor, testing on the organ for viability to be even good enough to attempt to transplant. Everything is tested to six ways to Sunday!!!
The recipient in almost every case will die without the organ that has been deemed necessary.
No one is in imminant danger from some people not being able to donate blood.
Someone is definately at risk & can die without a viable transplant , usually they can harvest (harvest isn't that a great word for this proceedure) more than 1 organ & 1 donor can help several people.

The difficulties in getting viable organs, is in many areas seeing people in need on waiting lists dieing before a viable match is found.
Taking a large percentage of possibly good organs away from even being checked is in my opinion reckless & putting sick people in harms way.

The differences between this & blood very different.
To try & paint Gays as the only people with a possible serious illness , is also BULLSHIT !

I leave you with this SEXY , anyone who gives blood can go back a couple of weeks later & do it again.
People who give their organs have ONE CHANCE, you can't go back at a later date & try !
The people who need them HAVE A VERY SLIM CHANCE.
Very slim a viable organ match will happen, cutting down on a source of possibly healthy organs is dumb.
Why should anyone be allowed to make anothers slim chance, even slimmer?

Comparing Blood donation & Organ donation is like saying a grape is just like a coconut.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/10/08 02:21 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:20 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/10/08 12:26 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Link maybe?

Anyway, could the reason be that gay people are at higher risk for certain diseases?

So are blacks and women, concerning AIDs anyways. What's your point?

Source, since I know you're quick to dispute me

First of all... that's concerning black women, not blacks and women.

Quote:

"In 1993, the AIDS infection rate for white men in the United States was 57 cases per 100,000 people. The rate for African- American men was 266 per 100,000 population, or more than four times that of white men.

The AIDS infection rate for white women was 5 per 100,000. But the AIDS rate for African- American women was 73 per 100,000, or 15 times as high."

-------

Secondly, either way that doesn't really mean anything in this discussion. Canada is what we're talking about... they barely have any black people. But apparently they have a lot of gay people, or at least a large enough population where donors who belong to that demographic create a disproportionate risk for organ quality or whatever, compared to the few blacks Canada has.

I'd still like morefngdbs to provide a link, so we can see what the Health Canada said about it.

[reviewer-general]

Intolerance.

[morefngdbs]

I haven't had time to look into this further, I only heard about it when at the hospital today getting my leg checked from last years accident.
I came home & opened a local paper,The Chronicle Herald &The Mail Star.
See if this link to them works.
If it only takes you to the 'Front page'
Put your cursor on news in the banner.
it will open a line of options go across to 'Nova Scotia' the story is in the highlights in Nova Scotia today.
I find it odd that everyone is suppose to be on board according to Health Dept. but doctors are all abuzz about it .
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/NovaSco tia/1010118.html

[SadisticMonkey]

Ignorance at it's worst.

[sickcutta]

They still have not found the Gay Gene what if it is hiding in the Penis they are going to transplant? They say Gay guys have A Huge pickle !!!!, and there are a lot of Asian guys wanting to get ahold of a big sausage,!!!! to satisfy there lady friends, then they get it and Bam they start knowing the names to all the colors and are up to date on the new fashion.. SCARY that could be a Horror movie.. ,

[morefngdbs]

At 1/10/08 09:16 PM, sickcutta wrote: They still have not found the Gay Gene what if it is hiding in the Penis they are going to transplant? They say Gay guys have A Huge pickle !!!!, and there are a lot of Asian guys wanting to get ahold of a big sausage,!!!! to satisfy there lady friends

;
Why not head back to general... your almost at the lower level of users there.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/08 02:21 PM, Grammer wrote: At 1/10/08 05:12 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Intolerance.

Maybe they're tired of testing like 90% HIV positive and it's wasting their time?
The government always has to play it safe, because if some guy gets AIDs from a gay liver or whatever, then they're in a heap of shit.

Sorry, but gay guys are known for sleeping around and spreading diseases. Right of the bat you'll have the ones going "WELL NOT ALL GAYS BLBLAB" to which I reply "shut the hell up?".

Bah, without any numbers, it's hard to tell you if this new measure is fair or really just targeting the poor misunderstood homogays, but I know that if I was on my death bed, I'd take all the gay organs you can throw at me no matter how contaminated they are. Why should I care, I'm going to die soon anyways, might as well give me a couple more years.

At 1/10/08 02:20 PM, Grammer wrote:

Source, since I know you're quick to dispute me

Wow it sounds more like black men are the cause of the women getting AIDs,
Can you believe how much of a giant fucking douchebag the guy in that article is?

[SmilezRoyale]

1) How does the canadian government prove that a gay had sexual relations within the past 5 years?
2) Why not simply make the qualifications; "Must be HIV negative proven by 2 tests taken within 18 month intervals. Since HIV isn't simply concentrated in gays.

Very simply, you want to be an organ doner... Send a blood sample to a doctors, Wait 1.5 years, take another blood test, if you pass, congratulations for being clean and helping someone in need with a medical problem, if you fail one or the other, congratulations for trying to infect someone with an incurable and fatal disease; douche bag.

I don't know EXACTLY how heavy the number of HIV infections is with homsexuals, but since there are other concentrations existing, and homosexuals arn't exclusive to anal sex... i can't imagine it's that high.

If it was in the 85+ percentile, i'd be less harsh on Canada right now.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/10/08 09:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/10/08 02:21 PM, Grammer wrote:

Maybe they're tired of testing like 90% HIV positive and it's wasting their time?
The government always has to play it safe, because if some guy gets AIDs from a gay liver or whatever, then they're in a heap of shit.

;
The only problem with that theory Pox is that Gays in Canada are not 90% infected.

Sorry, but gay guys are known for sleeping around and spreading diseases. Right of the bat you'll have the ones going "WELL NOT ALL GAYS BLBLAB" to which I reply "shut the hell up?".

;
So are girls & white str8 guy's , orientals, native Canadians, there are areas where there are disproportionate amounts of natives on reserves testing positive for HIV. Most all of them are Hetro !

but I know that if I was on my death bed, I'd take all the gay organs you can throw at me no matter how contaminated they are. Why should I care, I'm going to die soon anyways, might as well give me a couple more years.

;
If that was the choice, I'd probably join you, but that's not the real problem, it's the fact that throwing away the possibility of a gay mans perfectly good organs away just because he's gay... I say Fuck that , at least test him & find out... It's not hard for them to find out if your positive or not!

[poxpower]

At 1/10/08 09:42 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

The only problem with that theory Pox is that Gays in Canada are not 90% infected.

Well if they're going to kill all the cattle because one is infected with mad cow's disease, I can see where they're coming from. Even if it sounds pretty damn stupid.

So are girls & white str8 guy's , orientals, native Canadians, there are areas where there are disproportionate amounts of natives on reserves testing positive for HIV. Most all of them are Hetro !

We shouldn't take those creepy native organs then.
And I dunno, maybe it's just me, but isn't it fact that gay dudes generally have more partners than anyone else, hence are way more at risk?
THEY WORK OUT, MAN.

;
I say Fuck that , at least test him & find out... It's not hard for them to find out if your positive or not!

I know, it doesn't seem to make any sense since they claim they test them all anyways.
What's the reason? Why would they do that? I can only speculate.

[LadyGrace]

Wait... so, if I get a gay organ... does that make me gay?

[SadisticMonkey]

Great. Another Cellardoor/grammer bitch fight.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 1/11/08 12:26 AM, Grammer wrote: It's called a debate.

Yes, but only to the point when accusations of terrorism become involved.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/08 11:34 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Wait... so, if I get a gay organ... does that make me gay?

at least in some part.
Like if they replace your liver, you'll start craving vodka coolers.

At 1/11/08 12:25 AM, Grammer wrote:
I personally don't want any organ via transplant if I can't be assured it's been tested, I don't know why any Canadian would want anything less.

I know, that's why I think it doesn't make sense and I imagine that their reason for denying the gays is because they come up positive more often and they're tired of wasting their efforts testing them for nothing and holding up the lines.
Don't know why else they would do it, other than just pure stereotypical stupidity, which in my experience is not prudent to attribute to governments.

At 1/10/08 02:20 PM, Grammer wrote:

w/e dude, all I know is that everyone is at risk for HIV/AIDs.

Did you even read it?
Man that guy is a fucking jackass.

This should be a non-issue.

Well what's their reason?
So far I only saw "we don't want gay organs" and the other side, which goes "WHAT WHAT WHAAAAAAAAAT OMG THIS CAN'T BE TROO THERE'S NO REASON".

So what's the official reason?

[LazyDrunk]

At 1/11/08 01:02 AM, poxpower wrote: So what's the official reason?

I'm guessing something genetic. Wouldn't they have banned gay organs earlier if it were something so simple as AIDS screening? Maybe they were seeing a higher rejection rate among gay-organ transplant beneficiaries with no other explanation other than that they came from a homo.

[LazyDrunk]

Some people say online aliases are the mirror to one's soul.

I say it's their sig text.

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

At 1/10/08 10:56 AM, Drakim wrote: It's clearly a good decision. We can't allow our children to get GAY ORGANS.

because once you get gay organs into your body. you catch gay

[Drakim]

At 1/11/08 07:02 AM, Kasualty wrote: fags are at a higher risk of disease such as AIDS because their sex involves a lot of tearing.

1. Not only gay people have anal sex.
2. Black people have a higher precentage of AIDS than white, should we block their organs too?

[Drakim]

At 1/11/08 12:57 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/11/08 07:23 AM, Drakim wrote: 1. Not only gay people have anal sex.

The type of sex is irrelevant

If straight people have anal sex, it's also prone to spreading nasty stuff like AIDS.

Thus, the logical thing to do would be to ask people if they have had anal sex the last 5 years, not if they have had gay sex.

At 1/11/08 01:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Some people say online aliases are the mirror to one's soul.

I say it's their sig text.

I'd love for you to explain what ya mean by that.

It's almost poetical, lol

[Centurion-Ryan]

I support this.

Watch in amazement as I don't bother to come here again and still get flamed like hell.

[Memorize]

As wrong as it is, I find it funny because of only 1 thing:

Homosexual: "We're just like everybody else"

*shows report of Homosexuals have quadruple the amount of the disease*

Homosexual: "that doesn't matter".

Tests are helpful in determining disease. They should've done it here. Though with HIV, there's a relatively good chance of the test being wrong, so I can see their concern in that area. Also the costs and amount of time it would take to do enough tests to make a proper conclusion.

[Memorize]

At 1/11/08 03:01 PM, Grammer wrote:

Any argument you can make against gays donating organs, I can make against blacks or women donating organs.

I'm saying that if there's some sort of line for homosexuals (whites, blacks, indians... whoever) to have to pass in order so that it's the safest for them to donate or give blood, then they (as a whole) should have to pass that line.

Public safety first.