Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[Ekolite]

Afaik condoms only have around an 80% chance of preventing HIV spread. Its only unwanted pregnancies that they're close to perfect at preventing. Thats why the question of protected/unprotected sex doesn't come into it.

 

[MobBoss]

I seriously doubt most gays frequently practice dangerous sex acts which may lead to becoming infected.

Are you kidding me? You did see some of the demograph stats given earlier in the thread didnt you? For example:

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).

You simply cant deny that gays as a demograph experience a much higher rate of HIV/AIDs transmission than other demographs. How on earth can you be in denial of this? It doesnt matter if most (i.e. 51% or more) actually do it - its simply enough that the demograph has such a shockingly higher rate of it in comparison to everyone else.

Its also why they ask you about needle drug use, paying for sex, etc. etc. As those are actions that can greatly increase your chance of getting HIV/AIDs.

 

[Japanrocks12]

He's talking about a large majority of them frequently performing those acts, not just occasionally.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I guess that explains why most gays are now infected with AIDs. Because most of them are as promiscuous and frequently practice dangerous sex as a handful claim they are.

Once again, it is simply a matter of asking the blood donor if he has done so in the past month.

 

[Algeroth]

That window is extremely short and is still present with anybody:

That window is according to my virology lessons three weeks to 6 months. This is not "extremly small". And of course that, it is prent with anybody, the point is that MSM have a much greater HIV prevalence than other segments of populations.

You're trying to justify a stupid discriminatory practice by saying that he was the victim of an otherwise reasonable assumption to make, instead of agitating for the assumption to not be made in the first place. I am trying to disagree with you.

When males here are allowed four donations per year, and woman only three, it is discriminatory too and should this practice be abolished?

. Besides, frankly its a very minor issue as far as rights goes. What really matters is marriage equality, not blood donations.

This.

 

[MobBoss]

I guess that explains why most gays are now infected with AIDs. Because most of them are as promiscuous as a handful claim they are.

Who said this? Or are you portraying a logical fallacy here?

 

[Japanrocks12]

Who says we can't tackle more than one issue at once? This issue doesn't get nearly as much coverage, so all the more reason people should challenge their assumptions.

 

[MobBoss]

Who says we can't tackle more than one issue at once? This issue doesn't get nearly as much coverage, so all the more reason people should challenge their assumptions.

Why should this even be an issue at all? Again, you dont have a right to donate blood, and the questions asked in giving blood, while discriminatory, are quite needed in order to help ensure our blood supply remains untainted as possible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That window is according to my virology lessons three weeks to 6 months. This is not "extremly small". And of course that, it is prent with anybody, the point is that MSM have a much greater HIV prevalence than other segments of populations.

I think I'm going to go with the acknowledged medical experts on this one.

 

[MobBoss]

I think I'm going to go with the acknowledged medical experts on this one.

You mean like the CDC? Good choice.

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

 

[Japanrocks12]

You mean like the CDC? Good choice.

Do they make any proscriptions about how appropriate it would be to allow them to donate blood given screenings? No.

 

[MobBoss]

Do they make any proscriptions about how appropriate it would be to allow them to donate blood given screenings? No.

Most reasonable people would think it wise to distinguish the male demograph that has 44 times the rate of HIV infection than other men.

That particular stat is why I have no problem what-so-ever with the screening process being the way it is. And until that stat and the others involving MSM changes for the better, you shouldnt have problems with the screening process either.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Most reasonable people would think it wise to distinguish the male demograph that has 44 times the rate of HIV infection than other men.

That particular stat is why I have no problem what-so-ever with the screening process being the way it is. And until that stat and the others involving MSM changes for the better, you shouldnt have problems with the screening process either.

People who know anything about this know that there's a way to make the process equal for everyone despite the fact that the statistic is higher. We still allow teenagers to drive even though they are more likely to end up in accidents, since there are such things as seat belts and laws against reckless behavior.

You don't want to acknowledge that the process can be made equal for everyone because it would be too expensive for your personal taste. It is literally "spend more money" versus "promote needless inequality and discrimination" here.

 

[MobBoss]

Since you dont have a right to donate blood, why bother to make it 'equal' for everyone, while in turn adding more expense and risk to the blood supply?

This simply isnt a problem, and in fact, its the opposite. Its good sense.

And while we still allow teenagers to drive, they also have to pay a much larger premium on their insurance for that priviledge. Apparently you forgot that.

EDIT: It also occurs to me as to question what sort of person would want to donate blood, if they fully knew they were HIV positive, or engaging in high risk behaviors that put them at a much higher risk of getting HIV? Doesnt this person have a morale and ethical obligation to others to not possibly infect other people with their disease? Donating blood is a priviledge, but not one that need be exercised over and above the risk of infecting some innocent person with a disease like HIV/AIDs or other blood born pathogen.

 

[Algeroth]

I think I'm going to go with the acknowledged medical experts on this one.

Like these?

Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies....Ninety-seven percent of persons will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

BTW, are you implying that my univ teachers doesn't know what they are talking about? If that is the case, could you please send me link to a paper that outlines reliable and efficent antibodies diagnostic method capable of detecting HIv in the first three weeks? Thanks.

 

[Algeroth]

You don't want to acknowledge that the process can be made equal for everyone because it would be too expensive for your personal taste. It is literally "spend more money" versus "promote needless inequality and discrimination" here.

Could you answer my question wether we should allow women to donate blood as often as men do?

 

[Japanrocks12]

I don't know why there's a discrepancy between men and women (if there's a scientific basis for it). If so, then it would not be discriminatory and the practice should continue. At least, nowhere near as discriminatory as not letting women donate blood at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As Dr. Caplan stated, this absurd policy from the past is based on nothing but prejudice and fear.

Cantwell, senators call to end ban on gays donating blood

"Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who joined Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and 15 other Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in writing Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

The lawmakers stressed that the science has changed dramatically since the ban was established in 1983 at the advent of the HIV-AIDS crisis. Today donated blood must undergo two different, highly accurate tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually zero, they said.

The senators' letter noted that in March 2006, the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and the American Association of Blood Banks reported to an FDA-sponsored workshop that the ban "is medically and scientifically unwarranted."

Kerry compared the effort to lift the blood donation ban to legislation he backed in 2008 to end the law banning people with HIV from traveling and immigrating to the United States. That ban was lifted last year.

http://ctrlclick.com/2010/06/rejecting-science-hhs-maintains-1985-gay-blood-ban/

Last week the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability held a two-day talk to reconsider the 1985 ban on accepting donations of blood by men who have had sex with men since 1977. The US' ban has repeatedly been criticised by blood banks, medical experts and various associations as being based on no science but simply paranoia. Even though it's come up for reconsideration a few times, the ban has never been removed and sadly last week's attempt was no different. Despite soliciting opinions over the issue, the committee voted 9-6 to leave the ban in place, ignoring the advice from people who know what they are talking about who said such a ban was discriminatory and worthless.

But yet again, if you're gay in the US and consistently practising safe sex and are routinely tested, you're somehow more of a risk for contamination than a heterosexual who is unaware of his status and doesn't use condoms. You can even have unsafe sex with a prostitute if you're straight, but have to only wait a year to donate blood again; gay men are still banned for life.

A recent study proclaimed that repealing the ban would boost the US' supply of viable blood by 219,000 pints; blood levels in the US are consistently, dangerously low, but officials empowered to do the right thing still refuse to. The ban abhorrently discriminates against gay and bisexual men and causes serious harm to patients who are being deprived safe, viable blood for medical needs.

Which comes around to one of the infuriating aspects of the whole thing; throughout the entire two day conference, the Obama administration failed to make themselves involved and criticise the existing ban or even advise the HHS that they should get rid of it. Between this, the impotence over DADT, and the snowballing list of forgotten promises by Obama towards our community, I'm really finding myself incredibly frustrated with our "fierce advocate."

 

[MobBoss]

I didnt realize that John Kerry, and Cantwell, Sanders, et all, were 'medical experts'.

 

[Traitorfish]

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

Not to mention the fact that straight or straight-identifying men can and do have sex with other men. Even if we accept the silly "gaydar" method as it is, it's still not a particularly foolproof way to determine who's actually screwing who.