Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[Ekolite]

I'm arguing the wider picture about why MSM should be prohibitted from blood donation, the individual case is kind of besides the point. Although I have explained that I consider it the lesser of two evils.

Some stats about HIV and MSM.

MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).

MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

From CDC surveillance systems

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This article sounds made-up. There is no policy to reject donors on the basis of "seeming gay".

 

[Japanrocks12]

This article sounds made-up. There is no policy to reject donors on the basis of "seeming gay".

This is a very real thing that could happen in some parts of the US.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This is a very real thing that could happen in some parts of the US.

Illegally. Even if some federal government agency were to establish such a guideline, it would be unenforceable since it violates federal civil rights laws.

 

[Tani Coyote]

An archaic law that's only justification was a lack of technology to root out specific cases of HIV.

We can do that now. Time to update the books.

As for HIV not always being apparent, perhaps multiple screenings?

You can take away the cash donation I suppose...

...though now I feel like donating blood regularly...

 

[NovaKart]

I won't argue with the above statistics but I think it's also worth mentioning that gays more often get HIV tests and are more likely to know about their HIV status while many straight people could be undiagnosed.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I won't argue with the above statistics but I think it's also worth mentioning that gays more often get HIV tests and are more likely to know about their HIV status while many straight people could be undiagnosed.

This is very true. With this in mind, it's nothing but discriminatory to call for a blanket ban on MSM donations

 

[Tarquelne]

They ask if you have had sex with another male.

In fact gay-virgin blood is in high demand through much of the "Bible Belt."

 

[downtown]

Illegally. Even if some federal government agency were to establish such a guideline, it would be unenforceable since it violates federal civil rights laws.

Would it? Is sexual preference a federally protected class?

 

[Tani Coyote]

To run the point home, I am not any of the gay stereotypes in any way apart from my liking for men.

So I'd be able to get in, but a straight man wouldn't.

This ban is ridiculous from a practical standpoint as much as a moral one.

Never mind all that, you know, truth about how heterosexuals catch it too.

 

[Ekolite]

It takes three weeks after infection for HIV to show any symptoms, or to show up in testing. Before then blood contaminated with HIV can pass testing and be pooled with other blood of the same blood type. This blood can then be used in transfusions, whereby the HIV virus will infect the recipient who will then become HIV+.

MSM are 44 times more likely to carry the HIV virus then other men. It is nothing less then crazy to allow a such a high risk group to donate blood.

 

[Japanrocks12]

It takes three weeks after infection for HIV to show any symptoms, or to show up in testing. Before then blood contaminated with HIV can pass testing and be pooled with other blood of the same blood type. This blood can then be used in transfusions, whereby the HIV virus will infect the recipient who will then become HIV+.

Then why isn't this a concern with everyone who claims to have been tested before they donate blood? Straight people get HIV infections, and under your system, could potentially donate blood in the narrow window of time before being infected and it showing up in the results.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It takes three weeks after infection for HIV to show any symptoms, or to show up in testing. Before then blood contaminated with HIV can pass testing and be pooled with other blood of the same blood type. This blood can then be used in transfusions, whereby the HIV virus will infect the recipient who will then become HIV+.

MSM are 44 times more likely to carry the HIV virus then other men. It is nothing less then crazy to allow a such a high risk group to donate blood.

Sounds like we should just require multiple screenings. One three weeks prior to the donation, one on the day of the donation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This article sounds made-up. There is no policy to reject donors on the basis of "seeming gay".

Here are a few more details courtesy of ABC News:

Rejected Blood Donor Wants to Sue Over Faulty 'Gaydar'

Aaron Pace claims he is the victim of faulty "gaydar" and intends to sue for discrimination after he was not allowed to give blood because he appeared to be homosexual.

Pace, who is 22 and insists he is straight, was rejected from giving blood by Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, Ind., earlier this month.

Federal guidelines forbid blood donations by gays. The regulations dates back to 1983 and the outbreak of AIDS and the virus associated with AIDS, HIV.

"I was humiliated," Pace told ABCNews.com. "This was my first time experiencing this."

Pace said he filled out a questionnaire at Bio-Blood Components Inc. and sat through an interview with a staff member. When the interview was over, Pace was told he was not eligible to give blood and was turned away.

"She said 'I'm sorry, but it's the way that you act and appear to be. [It's] your sexuality.' And I said 'because I'm what?' and she said 'because you're gay,'" said Pace. He demanded to speak with the doctor on site who reiterated that he had been denied.

The American Red Cross and other groups that supply donated blood have asked for a review of the regulation.

"Our top priority is the safety of our volunteer blood donors. All donors should be treated with fairness, equality and respect [and based on] accurate donor histories," said Stephanie Millian, a spokeswoman for the Red Cross.

"Using 'gaydar' to determine who's gay is also probably unreliable and the real truth is that there certainly are people who are donating who have done other risky behavior," said Caplan. "Going after homosexuals doesn't get at where the risk is. At the end of the day, you want to really rely on testing and people fessing up."

"The rest of it is bias... I don't think it's based on anything except bias," Caplan added.

Some of the comments about Bio-Blood Component are hilarious:

I would never go back to this dump. It_s crackhead central in there. You can_t sit in lobby without being approached by some bum. A tall black chick that serviced me was very depressed looking. If you came to my job like that, I would fire you!

I called to get some upated information and this is what I found out. I could earn $30 my first donation, $40 my second donation and then the amount I earned was dependent upon my weight at time of donation, average I could make was $55 per week. This seems pretty fair and reasonable for approximately 2 hours each week. I may give this a try, as I need the money!

I went there midday in the summer, and the place was packed, literally every seat in a cramped little room was filled, and the nurses were dawdling and talking to each other and not serving anyone. The line wasn_t moving at all. When I went up to sign in they didn_t pay attention when I asked them something, but were rude and seemed bothered that I_d tried to talk to them. I ended up leaving after several minutes passed and no one went in. Also, for college kids, be warned that as Gary is not a college town, but a ghetto, this blood bank is there to take advantage not of poor college kids but of poor people, people who are poor and will always be poor because they_re stuck in a ghetto. It_s a big difference, and the long wait in such company is very depressing.

 

[downtown]

They ask if you have had sex with another male. You can also be prevented if you're from certain countries or have spent time in those places, mostly African countries.

Since someone could be gay but never had sex before it wouldn't make sense to just straight out ask if someone is gay.

Or even if you've had sex with somebody who has spent time in some of those countries.

 

[Ekolite]

Then why isn't this a concern with everyone who claims to have been tested before they donate blood? Straight people get HIV infections, and under your system, could potentially donate blood in the narrow window of time before being infected and it showing up in the results.

Its about risk management. MSM is a small group with a high probability of HIV. You can ban them from donating without loosing too many blood donations. Non-MSM is a very large group with a very small probability of HIV. It doesn't eliminate HIV+ donations being made in the three week window, which is why they're not completely unheard of, but it makes them extremely unlikely.

Its very basic risk management.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Its about risk management. MSM is a small group with a high probability of HIV. You can ban them from donating without loosing too many blood donations. Non-MSM is a very large group with a very small probability of HIV. It doesn't eliminate HIV+ donations being made in the three week window, which is why they're not completely unheard of, but it makes them extremely unlikely.

Its very basic risk management.

I'll be sure to cite you when I become an employer and reject every job application by black men without considering anything else because they are more likely to steal from the company. It's all about risk management, right?

 

[Ekolite]

Its not comparable because the effect of petty theft on a business is so inferior to the effect of infecting someone with HIV. Yes, statistically black people are more likely to steal, due to increased liklihood of a poor background. However, there are two sides to risk, liklihood, and damage. If you infect someone with HIV you as good as destroy their lives, this is worth the discrimination. The damage of a few office supplies going missing does not warrant a similar act of discrimination.

Its more like saying it is very unlikely for a large meteor to hit the earth, but we should still try to be able to prevent this because otherwise in the event that it did happen, the earth would be destroyed.

So yes, its all about risk management.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Look dude, TaniciusFox has outlined a system that would both prevent discrimination AND ensure that all donations are safe to use. Why would you not accept this system and instead revert to the discriminatory blanket ban?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Look dude, TaniciusFox has outlined a system that would both prevent discrimination AND ensure that all donations are safe to use. Why would you not accept this system and instead revert to the discriminatory blanket ban?

How expensive would two screenings instead of one be is my question, really.

I doubt too expensive, though I'd need the numbers.

This is repeated every time you want to donate, so it becomes virtually impossible to infect the system.

Another issue is it might make the system cumbersome, but if you really want to donate blood and help people out, then scheduling the equivalent of an appointment is hardly a concern.