Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[Tani Coyote]

You wont be, the question is about if you have had sex with a man.

But it specifically says here this young man was refused just because he was speculated to be gay, not an MSM.

a computer isn't a perversion of nature, that is

Why is altering cells a perversion of nature?

Cells are not life. You can make an argument a fertilised egg is, but if sperm and ova are life, then they are constantly being murdered by the natural processes.

 

[Ajidica]

Cells are alive. They fit the ten criteria for life. Whether they are sentient life is the question.

 

[civ_king]

But it specifically says here this young man was refused just because he was speculated to be gay, not an MSM.



Why is altering cells a perversion of nature?

Cells are not life. You can make an argument a fertilised egg is, but if sperm and ova are life, then they are constantly being murdered by the natural processes.

Which is wrong

they aren't human life, but life they are, otherwise your argument leads to using hand sanitizer is mass murder.

 

[Arakhor]

they aren't human life, but life they are, otherwise your argument leads to using hand sanitizer is mass murder.

That is essentially the same thing that happens to Petri dish colonies and is the starting point of test-tube babies.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Good point. Perhaps we just empty out Australia, and send all they gays there, to form Gayistan?

I believe we already have such a place. It's called Greenwich Village, NY.

Until someone here can name a medical test that can accurately prove with the slightest error margin whether or not a gay man has had intercourse in his life, I will stick to my original claim that medical operations will not accept gay blood simply because the risk for lawsuits and health complications skyrocket.That being said, those who participate in unnatural sex have and will continue to be more prone to AIDS.

Does fellatio count as unnatural?

I donate blood often as I get called to donate all the time. I also have given to no less than three entirely different organizations locally, and at different office locations for each organization. Every, single, time I have given blood, no matter the location, or company that does it, I have been asked the question 'have I ever had sex with another man'.

Ok, fine. I stand in awe of your amazing medical knowledge, as I have not stalked blood collection offices. I'm usually on the transfusion end of things.

The reason they do have the ban in place, and pre-screen verbally and in writing is precisely because people do lie and this is important. So, its not pointless at all.

So only the best liars get through?

 

[Ajidica]

Until someone here can name a medical test that can accurately prove with the slightest error margin whether or not a gay man has had intercourse in his life, I will stick to my original claim that medical operations will not accept gay blood simply because the risk for lawsuits and health complications skyrocket.That being said, those who participate in unnatural sex have and will continue to be more prone to AIDS.

As Nano pointed out earlier in the thread, all blood is put through screening.

Seriously, the article sounds made-up. I've never heard of a FDA regulation banning gays from donating blood. All blood donations are subjected to screening tests for various infectious diseases, including HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis-B and C. Since routine screening, transfusion infectious have virtually disappeared. Maybe there was a time before 1985 when gays were excluded, but that regulation can't possibly be in force today.

 

[Tani Coyote]

they aren't human life, but life they are, otherwise your argument leads to using hand sanitizer is mass murder.

Indeed, which means mass killing of life isn't always wrong.

Sperm and ova inherently are destroyed anyway. They are not sacred. They do not develop into human beings, unlike a fertilised egg.

Therefore, I see no issue with altering them. Most of them die anyway.

 

[MobBoss]

Ok, fine. I stand in awe of your amazing medical knowledge, as I have not stalked blood collection offices. I'm usually on the transfusion end of things.

I didnt realize commenting on my anecdotal experiences in giving blood equated to awe inspiring medical knowledge.

Must be a doctor thing.

Btw, if you gave a patient tainted blood via that 'transfusion end' your're on, how large of a malpractice lawsuit could you expect? Do you think your career would survive something like this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/taintedblood/bloodscandal_timeline.html

So only the best liars get through?

Lets put it this way. The more people that get excluded via the prescreen process, the less chance there is of something bad getting into the blood supply. I'm not sure why a medical professional doesnt seem to appreciate that, especially given stories like the one I just linked above, but /oh well.

 

[innonimatu]

a computer isn't a perversion of nature, that is

Who appointed you judge of what is and is not part of nature?

Not to mention that your claim above is just a plain lie.

 

[Arakhor]

The less people that give blood, the less chance there is of bad blood, yes. I doubt that's in question. The key is to developing a non-discriminatory set of guidelines.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Er, no. I question that. If one sample of blood is taken, there is an okay chance that 100% of the blood supply is now tainted.

 

[civ_king]

The less people that give blood, the less chance there is of bad blood, yes. I doubt that's in question. The key is to developing a non-discriminatory set of guidelines.

Actually if you take less blood that statistically is far more likely to be tainted than average you can make a good decrease in the probability of it being tainted without decreasing the blood amount as much

 

[MobBoss]

The less people that give blood, the less chance there is of bad blood, yes. I doubt that's in question. The key is to developing a non-discriminatory set of guidelines.

Actually, the less people in high risk groups give blood, then the less chance there is of bad blood.

Not all discrimination is bad. In some cases discrimination makes absolute good sense. This is one of those instances.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'd reduce ban from being on donations from all men who have had sex with men to only be on donations from men who have had sex with men since a month before they last passed an STD screening.


I'd also make it so that donators do not have to listen to and answer every question separately if the answer to a previous question makes the answer to previous questions obvious. Someone who has made it clear that he has never engaged in any sexual activity with anyone does not need the embarrassment or waste of time caused by a long series of question pertaining to various specific sex acts.

 

[Atticus]

AFAIK Blood is tested in batches, if one sample has HIV/AIDS it contaminates them all making them all need to be thrown out.

Are you sure they don't just make more specific tests? If a batch is contaminated, they test in smaller batches?

Cause and effect. Unnatural sex = more prone to STDs.

Heteros can and do have anal sex too.

Also, the unnatural sex act of using condom actually reduces STDs.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's been a few years, so not only iirc but "if things haven't changed". In Canada, the blood donations are pooled into groups of ~1,000 pints, and the batch is tested. If a batch is bad, it's thrown out.

As well, apparently very few batches are contaminated. Apparently, people who donate blood are unlikely to have an STD.

When it was explained to me, the problem was that with so many pints being pooled, the odds of a gay man putting HIV into a pool was too high. Even if only 3% of gay donors didn't know they had HIV (because ones who did know they had HIV wouldn't donate), too many pools could be ruined.

 

[Atticus]

Pooling blood samples has been used as an efficient method of testing people for diseases since the WW1, and at least then the idea was that if one batch is contaminated, they run more accurate tests. I once read about this in William Feller's Introduction to Probability I, and there was also discussion of the probabilities with which this is cheaper. That should be able to be calculated too, but don't have that much time at the moment.

I'd think that this would be a good option for blood donations too, since they're always short of it. I know a gal who works in bllod service, so I'll e-mail her and ask.

 

[civ_king]

It's been a few years, so not only iirc but "if things haven't changed". In Canada, the blood donations are pooled into groups of ~1,000 pints, and the batch is tested. If a batch is bad, it's thrown out.

As well, apparently very few batches are contaminated. Apparently, people who donate blood are unlikely to have an STD.

When it was explained to me, the problem was that with so many pints being pooled, the odds of a gay man putting HIV into a pool was too high. Even if only 3% of gay donors didn't know they had HIV (because ones who did know they had HIV wouldn't donate), too many pools could be ruined.

I forgot, did you already post a source for that?

 

[Arakhor]

You know, when I post something absolutely obvious (less people donating means less blood, bad or otherwise), I don't need two people to post, starting with "actually..."

Blood stocks are in sharp decline (or were when I last heard about it), so (in this case at least) arbitrarily deciding that someone is too camp to give blood is utterly farcical.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I find it amusing that some people are so resistant to accepting free blood donations from gays, but they apparently have no real problem accepting it from prostitutes and IV drug users who need the extra cash and are willing to lie to get it.

As Nanocyborgasm and other keep pointing out, the current system is quite capable of screening out tainted blood from any donor who has HIV, or any other blood-transmitted disease. There is no longer anything to fear, but the fear persists anyway.