Disgusting depending on your viewpoint

david and julie said:
Hey kendor you should know better than to be sexist like this, what about the men! We are also short of sperm donations too and that's even harder to come by than blood. So with this in mind, I propose that condoms are to be compulsory for all men. The Gov will provide CDP's(condom depository point's) in every area. Obviously there is a need for maintaining sperm temperature. So with this in mind, it is proposed that after a s**g you will be obliged to leg it as fast as possible down to your local CDP whereupon a trained nurse will remove,weigh and then wring your condom out.

It is essential that the public realise that time is essential with this because the taddies can die if not kept warm.

The Gov apologises if this hurried departure from your loved one (or WHY) does bother you younger or single men but it was decided that the older and married men preferred this so they could get back home and go to sleep.

We also appreciate that a lot of donations may be going to waste, so in line with good green practices we will also be looking carefully at waste.

All alleyways and entries etc in known red light area's and outside pubs and clubs etc will be checked and stray condoms collected. Freshness is the key though here, so if your having a kneetrembler behind the pub and hear a whiring sound, don't be alarmed, just carry on. It will only be our remote camera and a CDP mobile unit will attend shortly. You can be assured that whilst he/she may smiling and watching(and maybe playing with themselves) our operatives are only being friendly.
But there are already sperm banks around so i dont' think i was being sexist, Was merely mentioning it in a voluntary way such as recyclers do it voluntarily.
I was really hoping that there may have been at least one GP who is into a bit of DIY that could have answered the question, With genetic engineering so advanced these days and the ability to synthisise products from relatively small samples the amount collected although small individually must collectively be collosal when you work out the numbers involved and blood products are very precious so we are always told.
 
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
david and julie said:
The Gov apologises if this hurried departure from your loved one (or WHY) does bother you younger or single men but it was decided that the older and married men preferred this so they could get back home and go to sleep.
Would be so that the missus doesn't miss out ?
 
I always carry a few blood donor magazines in the car, my theory is that if I crash and need blood, they are probably quicker to dish it out to a supplier :D

You might wonder why I don't just carry the card... well, I really really really hate giving blood, and just looking at the card makes me feel funny. I don't do it as regularaly as I should, but if everyone just did it a couple of times in their life, we would probably have enough.

Perhaps we should have a "donor preference scheme": priority for donor organs is assigned according to if you carry a donor card, and if you are willing to donate that organ in the event of your demise.

Say you need a kidney and you have the kidney box ticked, then you are more likely to get it than someone who is only willing to donate their liver. And they are more likely to get it than someone who doesn't bother. Same could work with blood!

People might reconsider their squeemishness on donating organs after death, if they knew that they won't get the bits they need otherwise!
 
AdamW said:
Same could work with blood!
There are a lot of people that would like to give blood but for various reasons they are not allowed to, that scheme would surely victimise them.
 
Well obviously that would have to be taken into account! I wouldn't begrudge blood to a haemophiliac for instance.

I just feel that seeing as I am needlephobic yet manage to give blood (although I was nearly turned away once because the nurse felt that I was too s**t scared), that pretty much anyone is mentally able to do it. No-one would describe it as pleasant, but once you've finished you have a virtuous glow about you.

At the risk of getting controversial, what would people's thoughts be on the following?

If we are short on blood, how does one decide who is most deserving out of the following 3 patients:

1) Terminal cancer patient
2) AIDS patient
3) Bloke who was brough in by an ambulance, whacked into a car whilst playing silly bu**ers on his motorbike.

I would imagine this is a decision that doctors have to make from time to time...

1 is sure to die, but through no fault of their own.
2 is sure to die, but who knows how long they will live with proper treatment, yet you can't help but wonder if they should have been more careful.
3, if he survives the next 24 hours will probably live, but he only got in that state through being a complete d*ckhead and endangering the lives of others at the same time.

I would say they probably give it to 3 seeing as it would be an "emergency", but whether or not it is fair... I'm not sure I would agree.
 
Well, you lot are welcome to my lung when I've... Cough, cough, urghhh, finished with it!
smoking.gif


Unless... there is always ebay! :D
 
Never mind yer lungs, I wouldn't mind those pretty wee locks o yers, sonny jim! ;)

New%20Year.jpg
 
Guess the pix from the 'rest' of that evening could be fun MMJ -- naughty night or just 'fancy-d' ? ;) ;)
 
AdamW said:
2) AIDS patient
2 is sure to die, but who knows how long they will live with proper treatment, yet you can't help but wonder if they should have been more careful.

Adam - I'm sorry to sound harsh, but you are on extremely thin ground here.

First AIDS is the full-blown disease. However, you don't necessarily suffer from "AIDS" - most sufferers test positive for HIV without having the full-blown condition, and as you say can remain HIV+ without developing AIDS for a very long time, especially with the right treatment.

Second, what about those who are HIV+ through absolutely no fault of their own? IE Have received blood products that were not thoroughly screened, or who were born HIV+ because their mother carried the virus?

You cannot make assumptions about HIV+ people and how they became HIV+, and certainly no doctor ever would.
 
Plain and simple a doctor should use the skills he/she possesses to choose who he/she thinks stands the best chance of survival (going on the premise that all is equal when he/she makes the desicion otherwise of course he/she should priotise.
But never should a doctor make a desicion on moral grounds they must not play god.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top