Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

I mean, you can't deny that there are homophobes and bigots who support such guidelines. Why, I think we can see that!
Of course. Just like there are ignorant lobbyists with total disregard for the well being of patients that support a change of said guidelines. I don't trust any of these groups, which is why these decisions shouldn't be influenced by sensationalist media, but determined by medical expertise. Agree?
 
I think the most relavent organizations are indeed the CDC (for statistical analysis) and the FDA (for legal implemention) on this issue. And again, I remind you that those you list as being 'in the field' are still recommending a 12 month ban on anyone having MSM sex, and simply NOT a free pass to donate. Ergo it STILL discriminates against the demograph, it just changes the ban from a lifetime ban to one of 12 months. So I dont know why you are touting these 'experts in the field' so much - they still recommend the same kind of discrimination and denial of the MSM demograph from donating blood. And as I already and factually pointed out, those 3 groups simply dont include everyone 'in the field' as you have implied over the last few posts.

Also, you just made another error. The guy in the interview doesnt work for the FDA, he is the professor of Bioethics at University of Penn. He was formally on the panel (for 4 years) that advises the FDA on these issues. So your claim that he 'works for the FDA' isnt even a fact in your own link.



Considering how this is going for you I can see why you would desire that. :lol:
.

Anyway for what it's worth, I never said I considered a 12 month ban as unreasonable but a lifetime ban certainly is.
 
@OP: So basically they just followed an old law that made sense at the time, but is no longer needed. Simple solution: Repeal the old law.

The 3 entities Nova keeps on mentioned actually recommended a revision to that law. To allow MSM to be able to donate, but only if they had not had sex with another man in the previous 12 months of donation. This still prohibits gay men that are actively having sex with other men from donating blood. In application it would do very little to actually change the reality of the situation in blood donation.
 
It makes more sense than the total ban you keep going on about who think that HIV tests haven't improved since 1986.
 
Good God, from your above quote I would certainly rate you as an expert. A douchebag should know a lot about the health industry.

You know what Nova? I havent called you a single name or labeled you in any way in this conversation. I have stated facts, and pointed out where you made errors in your argument, even in misrepresenting your own links and proof.

I dont claim to be an expert. Never have in any of this, and freely admit that my knowledge on this stems from reading the various links and articles that have been submitted in this thread so far. And given the totality of your argument vesus mine, I think it shows that I'm confident in how I have presented my points and you've been reduced to name calling.

Anyway for what it's worth, I never said I considered a 12 month ban as unreasonable but a lifetime ban certainly is.

You earlier said discrmination is unreasonable. Do you not regard a 12 month ban still as discrimination? How often do you think this will make a difference in reality of someone getting to donate and someone not being able to donate?

It makes more sense than the total ban you keep going on about who think that HIV tests haven't improved since 1986.

I think a total ban is justified given the reasons shown to be factual by the CDC and as mentioned on the FDA website on the matter. Especially the fact that the MSM demograph is the only demograph that is showing a rise in HIV infection rate (ergo, its getting worse instead of getting better). But thats my opinion as a non-expert and merely as a donor or possible recipient of the blood supply.
 
Your mocking tone shows that you just regard this as a pissing contest, you can go on innocently claiming that you're just presenting facts but you and I both know that that isn't true. And you can't deny that your own bigoted beliefs don't taint your opinion on the matter. The fact that certain organizations share those backwards beliefs doesn't really mean much and the fact that you and I can use a google search to paste some nonsense doesn't really mean much either. Interestlingly, I'm not the only one who's gone down telling you off in the last couple of months.

About the above, well it's certainly not exactly fair but it's an improvement on the current policy. Yeah your opinion is that someone who has had sex with a man since 1977 should consider his blood tainted, yeah that's reasonable.
 
Are you even trying to see this objectively Nova? I don't think Mobboss would object to gay donations if they were as safe as other, but would you keep the current restrictions for gays for the safety of patients until medicine improves?
 
I decided to ament my above post and I apologize for using crude language. I let my temper get the best of me.
 
Are you even trying to see this objectively Nova? I don't think Mobboss would object to gay donations if they were as safe as other, but would you keep the current restrictions for gays for the safety of patients until medicine improves?

Yes many experts say that there are vastly improved tests now available that were not back in the 80s.
 
So, until experts are sure beyond a doubt that gay donations won't post a risk for patients, the current guidelines are ok for a bit longer?!
 
To sum up Nova's argument:

1. Organizations like the FDA, CDC and even the advisory panel on blood issues are all 'backward' because their expert opinion differs from yours or certain groups/individuals.
2. People, like me, that acknowledge the factual statistics in the MSM demograph by studies done by the CDC actually matter, just exhibit 'bigoted beliefs' because we think action in cosideration of those statistics is justified.
3. Using google to cut and paste facts from the FDA and CDC is just 'nonsense' while the stuff you cut and paste apparently isnt (I have no idea if you used google or not to find it).
4. Others 'telling me off' previously is somehow justification for someone to do the same.
5. That apprently my opinion is that someone thats had sex with another man since 1977 should consider his blood 'tainted'. Odd, I dont recall saying that anywhere in this thread.

Is that accurate? I wouldnt want to get all that out of its proper context, but in reading your last few posts it seems pretty accuate.

Are you even trying to see this objectively Nova? I don't think Mobboss would object to gay donations if they were as safe as other, but would you keep the current restrictions for gays for the safety of patients until medicine improves?

Precisely true and in fact I stated earlier in the thread if the stats involving the MSM demograph were at the same level as everyone elses, then by all means remove the restriction.

Yes many experts say that there are vastly improved tests now available that were not back in the 80s.

But even those same experts admit no test is 100% accurate and the links provided earlier address that precisely. Case in point:

Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. For these reasons, FDA uses a multi-layered approach to blood safety including pre-donation deferral of potential donors based on risk behaviors and then screening of the donated blood with sensitive tests for infectious agents such as HIV-1, HIV-2, HCV, HBV and HTLV-I/II.
 
I would sum up that from the tyrant's post, a lot of people, yourself included don't really see this rationally.

Another thing, people who actually are in the business of blood donations do not see the ban on gays as worthwhile. People like you who are just on the sidelines speculating do. The FDA itself doesnt exactly have a straightforward answer on the matter. You keep going on about these three organizations as if they're totally irrelevant when they really represent a large number of groups working in the industry.

Yes, a lot of posters have a problem with you but it's probably not the right thing to bring that up so that's all I'll say on the matter.

On the last point, it seems to be the point you're continuosly holding up.

Honestly at least people like you are aging fast and we'll have a more enlightened society in the future.

Moderator Action: Speculating about whether or not posters have a problem with a specific poster is unnessecary and not welcome here - Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Of course. Just like there are ignorant lobbyists with total disregard for the well being of patients that support a change of said guidelines. I don't trust any of these groups, which is why these decisions shouldn't be influenced by sensationalist media, but determined by medical expertise. Agree?

I don't think these decisions are in danger of being influenced by the sensationalist media. Besides, the relevant authorities have their own media, so they can always disseminate accurate and scientific information where those are available.
 
I would sum up that from the tyrant's post, a lot of people, yourself included don't really see this rationally.

Another thing, people who actually are in the business of blood donations do not see the ban on gays as worthwhile. People like you who are just on the sidelines speculating do. The FDA itself doesnt exactly have a straightforward answer on the matter. You keep going on about these three organizations as if they're totally irrelevant when they really represent a large number of groups working in the industry.

Yes, a lot of posters have a problem with you but it's probably not the right thing to bring that up so that's all I'll say on the matter.

On the last point, it seems to be the point you're continuosly holding up.

Honestly at least people like you are aging fast and we'll have a more enlightened society in the future.

Uhm. Wrong. The FDA does indeed have a straightforward answer on the matter and I provided it right in this thread from their own website.

I have been very rational in this entire discussion. As to the people in the blood donation business - aside from me factually pointing out that the implication that everyone in that business wants a lifetime ban done away with is simply false, it also occurs to me that those people could also have an economic/fiscal incentive to see such a ban removed. In that if removing the ban means more donations, that in turn means more money into the pockets of those particular individuals/organizations. It is their business as you say, so why wouldnt they advocate removing restrictions on their business?

So I kinda call into question the implication that those individuals/groups reason is ethical/moral/non-discriminatory as opposed to simply fiscal. I dont think thats clear at all.

Honestly at least people like you are aging fast and we'll have a more enlightened society in the future.

On this particular issue, unless the HIV rate stops going up among MSM....I wouldnt count on it. In fact, I remind you of how many nations across the world actually have a prohibition on gay men donating blood. More than a few of them would probably be seen as 'enlightened societies' by you, so since thats simply a fact, i'm thinking you have less to stand on in this argument than you think.
 
Yes sure you've been really rational in hailing an outdated ban from 20 years ago despite improved testing and numerous people calling for the removal including the red cross.
 
Yes sure you've been really rational in hailing an outdated ban from 20 years ago despite improved testing and numerous people calling for the removal.

Ban isnt outdated, and was in fact recently upheld in a vote by 'experts in the field'. Its also the case in a great many countries across the world - even by a few that allow gay marriage, so apparently the issue isnt as 'outdated' as you would like.

Here are a few of those 'backward' nations that have a permanent ban for blood donations by MSM:

Canada
Denmark
Finland
Estonia
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Belgium
Austria
Netherlands
Norway
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Thats not all of them. Just some of my select examples of backward nations that see the issue the same way the USA does.
 
It's outdated considered the vastly improved testing equipment available and considering it comes from the 80s when very little was known about HIV. Sure, continue to live in the bronze age when all that was holy was written.
 
I don't see the issue here. Aids originated from a homosexual man and even today the gay population has higher rates of STD's.

What the hell? Do you know where aids came from? Let me give you a hint; it wasn't from a gay man.
 
Back
Top Bottom