|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 17:43:36 GMT -5
No, what with all the blood I've been... Ahhh, nice try! You won't get ME to confess! Drat! So close! ...Does that mean you're sticking with the "sexual activity" story? |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 21, 2011 23:02:03 GMT -5
This is true, unfortunately even within a committed relationship there is a non-insignificant chance of extramarital sex. This doesn't mean your partner is cheating on you or anything like that, it just means that within the general population the risk is there. I could support an exemption for committed relationships, however. You're absolutely right. I'm just leery of the concept of replacing an unfairly restrictive standard that impacts a relatively small portion of the population with an unduly restrictive standard that impacts a much larger portion of the population. We want more healthy people able to give blood, not fewer, y'know? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 21, 2011 23:14:52 GMT -5
This is true, unfortunately even within a committed relationship there is a non-insignificant chance of extramarital sex. This doesn't mean your partner is cheating on you or anything like that, it just means that within the general population the risk is there. I could support an exemption for committed relationships, however. You're absolutely right. I'm just leery of the concept of replacing an unfairly restrictive standard that impacts a relatively small portion of the population with an unduly restrictive standard that impacts a much larger portion of the population. We want more healthy people able to give blood, not fewer, y'know? This is true. We could just accept that there is going to be the risk of a false negative despite screening. I am curious as to how such a restriction would actually alter blood supply, information like that would definitely factor into such a decision. |
|
