Just when you think a new box ticking exercise cannot get dafter, I just heard this bull on the radio. I dont need to mass copy and paste, its all in the link above, but…..
This cunting is not aimed to be racist, and it is certainly not against blood donation by any creed or colour. It’s purely about the removal of a basic safety question and the continued bollocks of making things ‘inclusive’. I understand the need for blood donors from all walks of life, but risking lives with the possibility of HIV contaminated blood defies logic. Many people have had their lives ruined by contaminated blood from poorly or unscreened donations in the past, and to remove a safety question about people having had sex in endemic HIV regions seems another step backward to me, not forwards.
They are basically saying it poses no additional risk and will benefit more Blacks with things like Sickle Cell which is perfectly fine. They say the chances of contaminated blood getting through is 1 in 23 million. But I doubt the poor sod that gets given that 1 lot of infected blood will be relieved by such figures (it seems to be an unbelievably high success rate), and of course there are still innocent folk out there fighting for their lives or living with HIV after previous contamination fiascos.
And how many donations WILL be identified as being unusable or contaminated by this move and at what cost? To me this is a backward step in transfusion and blood safety all for the appeasement of ‘inclusivity’.
Nominated by: The Eternally Grumpy Cunt




