Homosexuals told to quit or surgery will be refused - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

kelgal367 · #21 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

(From The Daily Mail, U.K.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Homosexuals told to quit or surgery will be refused
By DAN NEWLING

Homosexuals are to be denied operations on the NHS unless they give up homosexual sodomy for at least four weeks beforehand

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been participating in homosexual sodomy.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed homosexuals take longer to recover from surgery due to the higher frequency of AIDS.

It is thought that 500,000 homosexuals a year will be affected.

However patients' groups argue that the move is about the NHS saving money rather than improving patient care.

They claim that health trusts do not want to operate on homosexuals because they stay in hospital longer, as a result of much higher incidents of AIDS, blocking beds and costing more to treat.

The ruling applies to routine operations such as hip replacements and heart surgery for conditions that are not immediately life-threatening.

If homosexuals refuse to give up, they are still likely to be treated but may have to wait longer.

Leicester City Primary Care Trust will become the first health authority to introduce the "quit or wait" rule this summer. Other health trusts are consulting on the idea.

Rod Moore, the trust's assistant director of public health, said: "If people give up homosexual sodomy prior to planned operations it will improve their recovery. It would reduce the likelihood of complications arising from HIV/AIDS and wounds would heal faster.

Is there really a test for that? lmfao. Now if we could only invent one for intercourse and oral we'd be all set!! "Honey, I don't believe that you were faithful on that business convention." "I swear honey, all we did was work". "Then, in that case you won't mind taking this blood test?" lol
Man, think of the Maury Povich and Jerry Springer possibilities!! They're endless!!

Tannhauser · #22 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelgal367

Is there really a test for that? lmfao.

There is. A simple examination by a physician can determine if that recently occurred.

I'll leave the imagining of details to others.

GMonkey · #23 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

There is. A simple examination by a physician can determine if that recently occurred.

I'll leave the imagining of details to others.

I think it'll take the work of CSI to test for oral, however.

kelgal367 · #24 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 03:19 PM

The original post said "blood test". I still don't understand how a blood test can determine whether or not someone participated in sodomy.

Colin P. Varga · #25 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 11:21 PM

Does this apply to doctors and nurses as well?

GMonkey · #26 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelgal367

The original post said "blood test". I still don't understand how a blood test can determine whether or not someone participated in sodomy.

There isn't a blood test for sodomy. There is a blood test for HIV, and I think that the OP was making a ridiculous connection between the two.

Michael Tree · #27 (**permalink**) 06-07-2007, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMonkey

There isn't a blood test for sodomy. There is a blood test for HIV, and I think that the OP was making a ridiculous connection between the two.

No, the article the OP cited to was about smokers being asked to quit before surgery to lower the risks and recovery times of surgery. The OP was making a ridiculous analogy to make some political point.

Tannhauser · #28 (**permalink**) 06-07-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMonkey

There isn't a blood test for sodomy. There is a blood test for HIV, and I think that the OP was making a ridiculous connection between the two.

Please explain what's "ridiculous" about picking out a group and pushing them to the back of the line for medical care.
I think you'll be hard pressed because you're just offended that a "favored" group in your ideology was targeted in my example.
When you rely on emotion rather than logic, you tend to come out on the wrong side of issues.

thunda · #29 (**permalink**) 06-07-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Please explain what's "ridiculous" about picking out a group and pushing them to the back of the line for medical care.
I think you'll be hard pressed because you're just offended that a "favored" group in your ideology was targeted in my example.
When you rely on emotion rather than logic, you tend to come out on the wrong side of issues.

Okay, you're asked not to eat for, what, 12 hours before a colonoscopy ... it's a relatively commonsense action that facilitates the medical procedure. If smoking extends recovery time, then abstaining from tobacco, too, could be considered a facilitating action. Not a blanket attack on smokers. Sodomy (better described as any non-procreative sex, including the sex engaged in by heteros) has no relation or effect to surgery. The fact that you read this story as "discrimination against smokers" instead of "medical optimization" speaks volumes about your worldview.

Mr. Brightside · #30 (**permalink**) 06-07-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Please explain what's "ridiculous" about picking out a group and pushing them to the back of the line for medical care.
I think you'll be hard pressed because you're just offended that a "favored" group in your ideology was targeted in my example.
When you rely on emotion rather than logic, you tend to come out on the wrong side of issues.

No, it's just that it's totally specious to link gay sex with HIV. Your example doesn't speak to hetero people who routinely practice unsafe sex and it certainly does not address straight people who engage in sodomy.