The ban on blood donation by gay men was put in place in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV Gay men will be able to give blood when government restrictions are lifted later this year, the Department of Health has said. A lifetime ban on blood donation by men who have had sex with another man was put in place in the UK in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV. But following a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (Sabto), men who have not had homosexual sex within a year will be able to donate if they meet certain other criteria. The recommendation has been accepted by the health ministers in England, Scotland and Wales, and the ban will be lifted on 7 November. Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom, will still not be eligible to donate blood, the DoH said. Sabto’s advisory panel, comprising leading experts and patient groups carried out its review based on the latest available evidence and found it could no longer support the permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men. They considered the risk of infection being transmitted in blood, attitudes of potential donors in complying with the selection criteria and improvements in testing of donated blood. The change means the criteria for men who have had sex with men will be in line with other groups who are deferred from giving blood for 12 months due to infection risks associated with sexual behaviours. These include women who have slept with a man who has had sex with another man, people who have slept with prostitutes and those who have had sex with anyone who has injected themselves with drugs. Current guidelines say people can never give blood if they have had syphilis, HTVL (Human T-lymphotropic virus), hepatitis B or C, and a lifetime ban is also in place for people who have ever worked as a prostitute or anyone who has injected themselves with drugs. The announcement was welcomed by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, but he said it fell short of lifting the ban on gay men who always use condoms. He said: “Although the new policy is a big improvement on the existing discriminatory rules, a 12-month ban is still excessive and unjustified.” The activist who launched the first campaign against the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual blood donors in 1991 added: “Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate. “They can and should be allowed to help save lives by becoming donors.” Public health minister Anne Milton said: “Blood donations are a lifeline, and many of us would not have loved ones with us today if it was not for the selfless act of others. “Our blood service is carefully managed to maintain a safe and sufficient supply of blood for transfusions. “Appropriate checks based on robust science must be in place to maintain this safety record and the committee’s recommendation reflects this. “It is important that people comply with all donor selection criteria, which are in place to protect the health of both donors and transfusion recipients.” The change will be implemented by both NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in England and North Wales and the Blood Services of Scotland and Wales. Health policy Gay rights Health Public services policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The ban on blood donation by gay men was put in place in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV Gay men will be able to give blood when government restrictions are lifted later this year, the Department of Health has said. A lifetime ban on blood donation by men who have had sex with another man was put in place in the UK in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV. But following a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (Sabto), men who have not had homosexual sex within a year will be able to donate if they meet certain other criteria. The recommendation has been accepted by the health ministers in England, Scotland and Wales, and the ban will be lifted on 7 November. Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom, will still not be eligible to donate blood, the DoH said. Sabto’s advisory panel, comprising leading experts and patient groups carried out its review based on the latest available evidence and found it could no longer support the permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men. They considered the risk of infection being transmitted in blood, attitudes of potential donors in complying with the selection criteria and improvements in testing of donated blood. The change means the criteria for men who have had sex with men will be in line with other groups who are deferred from giving blood for 12 months due to infection risks associated with sexual behaviours. These include women who have slept with a man who has had sex with another man, people who have slept with prostitutes and those who have had sex with anyone who has injected themselves with drugs. Current guidelines say people can never give blood if they have had syphilis, HTVL (Human T-lymphotropic virus), hepatitis B or C, and a lifetime ban is also in place for people who have ever worked as a prostitute or anyone who has injected themselves with drugs. The announcement was welcomed by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, but he said it fell short of lifting the ban on gay men who always use condoms. He said: “Although the new policy is a big improvement on the existing discriminatory rules, a 12-month ban is still excessive and unjustified.” The activist who launched the first campaign against the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual blood donors in 1991 added: “Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate. “They can and should be allowed to help save lives by becoming donors.” Public health minister Anne Milton said: “Blood donations are a lifeline, and many of us would not have loved ones with us today if it was not for the selfless act of others. “Our blood service is carefully managed to maintain a safe and sufficient supply of blood for transfusions. “Appropriate checks based on robust science must be in place to maintain this safety record and the committee’s recommendation reflects this. “It is important that people comply with all donor selection criteria, which are in place to protect the health of both donors and transfusion recipients.” The change will be implemented by both NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in England and North Wales and the Blood Services of Scotland and Wales. Health policy Gay rights Health Public services policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The ban on blood donation by gay men was put in place in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV Gay men will be able to give blood when government restrictions are lifted later this year, the Department of Health has said. A lifetime ban on blood donation by men who have had sex with another man was put in place in the UK in the 1980s as a response to the spread of Aids and HIV. But following a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (Sabto), men who have not had homosexual sex within a year will be able to donate if they meet certain other criteria. The recommendation has been accepted by the health ministers in England, Scotland and Wales, and the ban will be lifted on 7 November. Men who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the past 12 months, with or without a condom, will still not be eligible to donate blood, the DoH said. Sabto’s advisory panel, comprising leading experts and patient groups carried out its review based on the latest available evidence and found it could no longer support the permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men. They considered the risk of infection being transmitted in blood, attitudes of potential donors in complying with the selection criteria and improvements in testing of donated blood. The change means the criteria for men who have had sex with men will be in line with other groups who are deferred from giving blood for 12 months due to infection risks associated with sexual behaviours. These include women who have slept with a man who has had sex with another man, people who have slept with prostitutes and those who have had sex with anyone who has injected themselves with drugs. Current guidelines say people can never give blood if they have had syphilis, HTVL (Human T-lymphotropic virus), hepatitis B or C, and a lifetime ban is also in place for people who have ever worked as a prostitute or anyone who has injected themselves with drugs. The announcement was welcomed by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, but he said it fell short of lifting the ban on gay men who always use condoms. He said: “Although the new policy is a big improvement on the existing discriminatory rules, a 12-month ban is still excessive and unjustified.” The activist who launched the first campaign against the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual blood donors in 1991 added: “Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate. “They can and should be allowed to help save lives by becoming donors.” Public health minister Anne Milton said: “Blood donations are a lifeline, and many of us would not have loved ones with us today if it was not for the selfless act of others. “Our blood service is carefully managed to maintain a safe and sufficient supply of blood for transfusions. “Appropriate checks based on robust science must be in place to maintain this safety record and the committee’s recommendation reflects this. “It is important that people comply with all donor selection criteria, which are in place to protect the health of both donors and transfusion recipients.” The change will be implemented by both NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in England and North Wales and the Blood Services of Scotland and Wales. Health policy Gay rights Health Public services policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Hours after ousted Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi renewed his pledge to fight his opponents, his supporters were firing rockets at fighters outside the town of Bani Walid. (Sept. 8)
Continue reading …
Hours after ousted Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi renewed his pledge to fight his opponents, his supporters were firing rockets at fighters outside the town of Bani Walid. (Sept. 8)
Continue reading …What Good Is a Legal Right to Record Police Activity – If the Cops Target You When You Do It?
September 8, 2011 No CommentThis is the kind of tough journalism I’d like to see in more urban dailies. This Philadelphia Daily News reporter takes a national topic (the legal right to record police action) and looks at whether the right is even applied in day-to-day police work in the city’s police force: TAMERA MEDLEY begged the police officer to stop slamming her head – over and over – into the hood of a police cruiser. Thinking they were helping, passers-by Shakir Riley and Melissa Hurling both turned their cellphone video cameras toward the melee that had erupted on Jefferson Street in Wynnefield, they said. But then the cops turned on them. Riley had started to walk away when at least five baton-wielding cops followed him, he said, and they beat him, poured a soda on his face and stomped on his phone, destroying the video he had just taken. Meanwhile, two officers approached Hurling, urged her to leave and, after exchanging a few words, slammed her against a police cruiser, Hurling said. They pulled her by her hair before tossing her into the back of a cop car, she said. Although it’s legal to record Philadelphia police performing official duties in public, all three were charged with disorderly conduct and related offenses, and officers destroyed Hurling and Riley’s cellphones, erasing any record of Medley’s violent arrest, the pair said. Charges against Hurling and Riley were dismissed, but Medley was found guilty last month of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, harassment and related offenses. She was fined $500 but has filed an appeal. Echoes of the incident, which was corroborated by a half-dozen witnesses, have been reverberating nationwide in recent years as the combination of cellphone video and police officers has simmered into what is an increasingly explosive formula. A growing number of bystanders have been misled, arrested or worse for using their cellphones to record what they perceive as excessive force by cops making arrests, watchdogs say. “I grew up in the neighborhood and I saw stuff go down but it never happened to me,” Riley said recently, adding that he did nothing wrong. “They stomped my phone and said it was a federal offense.”
Continue reading …What Good Is a Legal Right to Record Police Activity – If the Cops Target You When You Do It?
September 8, 2011 No CommentThis is the kind of tough journalism I’d like to see in more urban dailies. This Philadelphia Daily News reporter takes a national topic (the legal right to record police action) and looks at whether the right is even applied in day-to-day police work in the city’s police force: TAMERA MEDLEY begged the police officer to stop slamming her head – over and over – into the hood of a police cruiser. Thinking they were helping, passers-by Shakir Riley and Melissa Hurling both turned their cellphone video cameras toward the melee that had erupted on Jefferson Street in Wynnefield, they said. But then the cops turned on them. Riley had started to walk away when at least five baton-wielding cops followed him, he said, and they beat him, poured a soda on his face and stomped on his phone, destroying the video he had just taken. Meanwhile, two officers approached Hurling, urged her to leave and, after exchanging a few words, slammed her against a police cruiser, Hurling said. They pulled her by her hair before tossing her into the back of a cop car, she said. Although it’s legal to record Philadelphia police performing official duties in public, all three were charged with disorderly conduct and related offenses, and officers destroyed Hurling and Riley’s cellphones, erasing any record of Medley’s violent arrest, the pair said. Charges against Hurling and Riley were dismissed, but Medley was found guilty last month of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, harassment and related offenses. She was fined $500 but has filed an appeal. Echoes of the incident, which was corroborated by a half-dozen witnesses, have been reverberating nationwide in recent years as the combination of cellphone video and police officers has simmered into what is an increasingly explosive formula. A growing number of bystanders have been misled, arrested or worse for using their cellphones to record what they perceive as excessive force by cops making arrests, watchdogs say. “I grew up in the neighborhood and I saw stuff go down but it never happened to me,” Riley said recently, adding that he did nothing wrong. “They stomped my phone and said it was a federal offense.”
Continue reading …What Good Is a Legal Right to Record Police Activity – If the Cops Target You When You Do It?
September 8, 2011 No CommentThis is the kind of tough journalism I’d like to see in more urban dailies. This Philadelphia Daily News reporter takes a national topic (the legal right to record police action) and looks at whether the right is even applied in day-to-day police work in the city’s police force: TAMERA MEDLEY begged the police officer to stop slamming her head – over and over – into the hood of a police cruiser. Thinking they were helping, passers-by Shakir Riley and Melissa Hurling both turned their cellphone video cameras toward the melee that had erupted on Jefferson Street in Wynnefield, they said. But then the cops turned on them. Riley had started to walk away when at least five baton-wielding cops followed him, he said, and they beat him, poured a soda on his face and stomped on his phone, destroying the video he had just taken. Meanwhile, two officers approached Hurling, urged her to leave and, after exchanging a few words, slammed her against a police cruiser, Hurling said. They pulled her by her hair before tossing her into the back of a cop car, she said. Although it’s legal to record Philadelphia police performing official duties in public, all three were charged with disorderly conduct and related offenses, and officers destroyed Hurling and Riley’s cellphones, erasing any record of Medley’s violent arrest, the pair said. Charges against Hurling and Riley were dismissed, but Medley was found guilty last month of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, harassment and related offenses. She was fined $500 but has filed an appeal. Echoes of the incident, which was corroborated by a half-dozen witnesses, have been reverberating nationwide in recent years as the combination of cellphone video and police officers has simmered into what is an increasingly explosive formula. A growing number of bystanders have been misled, arrested or worse for using their cellphones to record what they perceive as excessive force by cops making arrests, watchdogs say. “I grew up in the neighborhood and I saw stuff go down but it never happened to me,” Riley said recently, adding that he did nothing wrong. “They stomped my phone and said it was a federal offense.”
Continue reading …
Ever feel the temptation to run your iDevice straight into a set of 250-ohm Beyerdynamic or Sennheiser cans? You could , but the resulting sound would hardly rock you. Thankfully, NuForce’s colorful Icon iDo is ready to assist in your iAudiophile needs for only $250. This headphone amp — supporting sampling rates up to 48kHz, 24-bits of resolution and a 10-20kHz frequency — cables into your iPod’s 30-pin connector to bypass the digital audio converter and uses its own to amp up the quality of your audio. The iDo promises to drive headphones all the way up to 300-ohms with 12mW of power via its 3.5 jack, and it’s also sporting digital / analog RCAs if you want to share the love with some speakers. You’ll be at the whim of wall outlets as plug-in power is required for operation, but at least its built IR receiver will let you remote control your playlists from afar. It’s available today if you’re finding your HiFi bugged piqued, and a backside shot with PR is just past the break. Continue reading NuForce’s Icon iDo amp improves iPod sound, costs more than a Classic NuForce’s Icon iDo amp improves iPod sound, costs more than a Classic originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:00:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …One thing Rick Perry doesn’t lose sleep over are the executions in his state. Asked last night if he ever worried that Texas has put an innocent man to death, he answered confidently: “No, sir. I’ve never struggled with that at all.” He praised the state’s “thoughtful, very clear process…
Continue reading …