• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Useful Discrimination

A

ArthurWilborn

New Member
arg-fallbackName="ArthurWilborn"/>
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Blood+agency+prevent+from+donating+blood+judge/3500086/story.html

Here's a good example of useful discrimination. Gays are, statistically, more a more risky group. They have higher instances of STDs and are more likely to have an STD that isn't currently tested for. Even if individuals are safe and know it, it's still much safer to discriminate against the entire group.
 
arg-fallbackName="Moky"/>
Black people have higher rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis, I guess we have to stop them from helping people who need it because they are a risky group.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/race.htm

The people giving blood could be tested for STDs and bring their results. I honestly doubt that ALL gay men such a risk that this had to be implemented.

Don't they test the blood after it's taken anyway?
 
arg-fallbackName="Aught3"/>
Our health service doesn't allow British people to donate even though the British health system relies almost entirely on their blood. It's all about risk and reward, if you run the numbers and find that a certain group of people pose too much risk then you don't let them donate. It's not like they are missing out on a special treatment from the government.
 
arg-fallbackName="Giliell"/>
I don't find that useful at all. Because statistics never tell you anything about an actual person. Unless statistics tell us that the numbers are VERY high (I could understand banning a group if the probability were at 50% or so), it's pure fucking fear mongering preventing good people from doing good things.
 
arg-fallbackName="ArthurWilborn"/>
Moky said:
Black people have higher rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis, I guess we have to stop them from helping people who need it because they are a risky group.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/race.htm

The people giving blood could be tested for STDs and bring their results. I honestly doubt that ALL gay men such a risk that this had to be implemented.

Don't they test the blood after it's taken anyway?
Click to expand...

Tests aren't 100% effective. Many tests aren't even 90% effective. And, as mentioned, a new disease would circulate among the homosexual population first, making it more likely to be donated before a reasonably effective test was invented.
 
arg-fallbackName="Aught3"/>
I have a question, is this even a discrimination against a sexuality, namely gay men?

What's actually being excluded are people who have undertaken a certain act, that act being a man having sex with another man (MSM). If a straight man was just curious and had sexual relations with another man, he would also be excluded from donating blood. If a gay man abstained all his life he would be allowed to donate.

Additionally, women are asked whether they've ever had sex with a man who's had sex with another man. Isn't this just as discriminatory against straight women as the MSM question is against gay men?

Given the relative rates of the excluded activity in each group (gay men, straight men, straight women) I'm not sure if this is a good argument. Or maybe it's only lesbians who aren't discriminated against by the health system :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top