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…
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
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,
A complete health history is needed to identify when a donor may be at greater risk.” In addition, getting a transplant can be risky for the donor as well. Anything can go wrong in a hospital at any time. No one can ever be 100% safe at a hospital even though it known to be one of the safest places; thing happen. Why risk a person’s life? If they would like to donate blood, it should only came from the kindness of their heart and not the fact they’re going to get paid. Which is safer for the hospital, if one transplant goes wrong, the hospital may have legal
“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...
Faster Recovery – Patients who have bloodless surgery recover faster and leave the hospital earlier compared to patients who had transfusions. The risks and complications of bloodless surgery are much lower. Patients spend less time in the intensive care unit. Their survival rate is higher 95% compared to patients that took blood which had an 89% survival rate (www.pbs.org - “Bloodless Surgery”).
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.
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 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
By donating blood to insure there is enough in supply, the life we save may be our own.
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.
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
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.
“Donating blood is safe and easy, and takes less than an hour and one blood donation can help as many as three or four different people! In what other activity, can so little time do so much” ("Feel Prepared. Give Blood." ). Just think, if no one gave blood then how many people would still be living who really needed it? Despite all our medical advances, there is no good man-made substitute for human blood; this is why blood donations are so important. Some people strongly believe that donating blood is bad, but what people don’t know is that it actually has surprisingly good benefits like reducing the risk of cancer, burning calories, and even saving someone’s life, so everyone who has the opportunity to give
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.