Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[NovaKart]

Yeah no one said there aren't better cases to fight for but considering I once started a thread on here about farting and another asking people about the fattest people they knew, I think it's OK to bring up issues that are not up for vital discussion.

 

[MobBoss]

Discrimination based on race is an absurd reason, based on sexuality it's not

Except this simply isnt based upon one's 'sexuality' at all, but covers MSM which, has been pointed out several times in this thread (even by those wanting to remove the ban), can include gay, straight or bi-sexual men. You arent asked about your sexuality, your asked about your behavior, which is the way it should be.

You cant have it both ways. You cant argue on one hand how the ban includes more than just gay men and then gripe about discrimination based on sexuality. Your're basically arguing against your own point.

Just to throw a random question out there -

If a 6 foot tall drag queen with a resemblance to Grace Jones, a noticably African accent and track marks walks in to the clinic what would you do?

Congratulations if you know who Grace Jones is.

Easy. You threat them exactly the same way you treat everyone else. And btw, your arms are also physically inspected for drug use. If they showed up with track marks they would probably be refused donation due to possible IV/Drug use.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Of course. I'm just questioning the, imo, strong desire to change regulation that has been for the safety of patients. These regulations will probably change in time, but I'd prefer if it was done when the medical expertise felt it was safe doing so.

The situation in Sweden is that gay men are technically allowed to donate, but most regions have been granted a respite from it until they're able to handle the extra procedures that will be necessary.

 

[MobBoss]

It still only halves the risk, which is actually completely negligible at this stage. And it still doesn't account for all those who lie about it to get their $40 each month.

You dont get money for donating blood. Your talking about blood plasma there. Slightly different issue.

I would much rather trust gay men who are freely donating their blood to tell the truth that they haven't engaged in risky sex in the last month, than trusting those who actually need the money in order to help pay their bills.

You would? At least admit that you would be in a very, very small minority in that. I wouldnt be willing to literally bet my life on that.

 

[NovaKart]

Except this simply isnt based upon one's 'sexuality' at all, but covers MSM which, has been pointed out several times in this thread (even by those wanting to remove the ban), can include gay, straight or bi-sexual men. You arent asked about your sexuality, your asked about your behavior, which is the way it should be.

You cant have it both ways. You cant argue on one hand how the ban includes more than just gay men and then gripe about discrimination based on sexuality. Your're basically arguing against your own point.



Easy. You threat them exactly the same way you treat everyone else. And btw, your arms are also physically inspected for drug use. If they showed up with track marks they would probably be refused donation due to possible IV/Drug use.

Yeah which is why asking if someone has had sex with a man ever since the 1960s is kind of stupid.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you want to have an open selection of where to donate your blood, you should be selective of where you donate your sperm. If you are effiminate looking or merely unmarried and known for hanging around with a group of men, you really should not expect to share your blood with the rest of the world except for maybe on Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings. This whole blood donation thing is kind of disturbing anyway. Blood is one of our most important commodities and we are expected to give it way. This expectation needs to be challenged and blood should be sold. Obviously, we need to provide proper incentive so blue blood will go for more than some the blood of some bum who just needs money. Anyway, this is a clever ruse to combat vampires. Those that never have a depleted supply of blood are those statistically more likely to give a vampire a disease. We should recognize the sacrifice that gay men are making in our fight against vampires. Pride is sometimes hard to swallow, but it is not like the gay community is shoving this sacrifice down our throats.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course. I'm just questioning the, imo, strong desire to change regulation that has been for the safety of patients. These regulations will probably change in time, but I'd prefer if it was done when the medical expertise felt it was safe doing so.

They do. The only thing currently holding it back is rampant homophobia among certain segments of the population, a strong hemophiliac lobby that doesn't want to see another 80s debacle (which obviously will never happen again now that proper testing is in place), and a few Reagan/Bush appointees who are just as bigoted as the people who appointed them.

The science is clearly there to finally repeal this absurd law, as other countries have already done with no adverse effects.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The laws and regulations are starting to change in a few countries. Not all have the same capabilities and the safety of the patients should be prioritized.
Being allowed to donate blood is good but not a right that needs to be rushed.

The homophobe- and hemophiliac lobby is clearly not as strong in the rest of the world as in the US.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is still being banned in Britain as it is in Sweden. And I'm fairly certain that any modern country uses exactly the same screening methods these days. They would be fools not to.

But I agree it is likely quite a bit less of an influence than what we find here. After all, many in your military aren't openly trying to defy the final repeal of DADT even though it is now inevitable.

And I bet this sort of thing rarely happens in your country:

Servicemembers Targeted in Anti-Gay Attack

Two gay servicemembers and several civilians were attacked in Colorado Springs, Colorado, by a group of African Americans at a fast food restaurant in the early morning hours of July 2. The attackers hurled anti-gay invective and racial slurs as the assault took place, reported Denver ABC affiliate 7News on July 4.

The soldiers had left a nightclub with friends shortly before the attack. They were with friends who work as go-go-dancers at the club.

"(We) went to Albert Tacos after leaving the nightclub where we work at," one of the military men, referred to as Ted, told local news station KRDO-TV.

"As soon as we walked in, there was a group of African American males that walked in," the other servicemember, referred to only as John, said. "And they started a confrontation with us because of the fact that one of our go-gos was still in his outfit."

John said that the harassment was both anti-gay and racial in nature.

"A lot of racial slurs," John recalled. "A lot of hatred slurs towards, like, homosexuals." The assailants did not stop with verbal abuse, however.

"I ended up getting kicked in the head and in the ribs several times," John told the media. "I have six bruised ribs. And my right eye was completely swollen shut for about nine or 10 hours.

One of the non-military victims suffered a fractured jaw, the article said.

Colorado Springs local media source NewsFirst5 quoted one of the gay soldiers as saying that although the group tried to leave the scene peaceably before things got out of hand, the assailants pursued them to the parking lot. That’s when the physical assault started.

"At that point it was basically a bum rush," the soldier told the news channel. "I turn around and my friend was getting stomped by six black males." The soldier went on to say, "Another female friend of mine was trying to fight off 3 or four men."

Physical attacks on suspected gays and their friends is still quite commonplace.

Moderator Action: If you want to discuss DADT, please do so in a different thread. Do not derail this one. - Truronian

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I should point out that the US FDA has a generally poor reputation among health care professionals. They are notoriously slow at approving new drugs, compared to European nations, and yet over-react to small problems. The FDA committees are typically political appointees, not necessarily experts in medicine or science, and follow the lead of the present administration's political agenda.

 

[GamezRule]

That applies to most of the US government.

 

[MobBoss]

They do. The only thing currently holding it back is rampant homophobia among certain segments of the population, a strong hemophiliac lobby that doesn't want to see another 80s debacle (which obviously will never happen again now that proper testing is in place), and a few Reagan/Bush appointees who are just as bigoted as the people who appointed them.

The science is clearly there to finally repeal this absurd law, as other countries have already done with no adverse effects.

Hemophiliac lobby? Huh?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You didn't read the article you complained about being posted twice? I even highlighted the relevant sections in my post, which I'll do so again.

Prof. CAPLAN: I agree with that. I think we have to understand that the terrible problems of the '80s left a deep, deep scar within the hemophilia community. They got ravaged by HIV. They had as bad an experience with death and morbidity as any group in America. So that lingers. You have to understand the reluctance to sort of go back to the gay men and allow them back in in the context of that terrible story.

But the science has moved. It doesn't make sense to just pick on one risk group out of many, heterosexual and homosexual. And as this email is telling us, sometimes people go in and donate blood anyway. We're relying on the test to pick them up, you know? Just because we have a policy doesn't mean that people aren't going to say, I don't care, I'm going to donate blood anyway.

CONAN: There - the - do you attribute the decision by the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability to hemophiliacs, that fear you were talking about?

Prof. CAPLAN: I do attribute it to fear. And I'll give you a little political background having been on this committee some years ago, but I get the politics of our blood supply, I think. Groups that rely on the blood supply every day, every week, every month to live - sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, people with immune disorders - they are concerned about safety. They're using blood products all the time and they want the safest blood supply possible. They're organized. They come to the committee meetings. They lobby.

 

[MobBoss]

You didn't read the article you complained about being posted twice? I even highlighted the relevant sections in my post, which I'll do so again.

Yeah...that describes a hemophilia community...

And I really dont care what this Caplan guy says. He sounds like a liberal quack to me.

 

[Arakhor]

As tolerant and unbiased as always, eh Mobboss?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Dr. Caplan is obviously an expert in the field of bioethics and chaired the Department of Health and Human Services committee on Blood Safety and Availability for four years.

Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., is Emmanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to coming to Penn in 1994, Caplan taught at the University of Minnesota, the University of Pittsburgh, and Columbia University. He was the Associate Director of the Hastings Center from 1984-1987. Born in Boston, Caplan did his undergraduate work at Brandeis University, and did his graduate work at Columbia University, where he received a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Caplan is the author or editor of twenty-five books and over 500 papers in refereed journals of medicine, science, philosophy, bioethics and health policy.

He has served on a number of national and international committees including as the Chair National Cancer Institute Biobanking Ethics Working Group, the Chair of the Advisory Committee to the United Nations on Human Cloning, the Chair of the Advisory Committee to the Department of Health and Human Services on Blood Safety and Availability, a member of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses, the special advisory committee to the International Olympic Committee on genetics and gene therapy, the ethics committee of the American Society of Gene Therapy, and the special advisory panel to the National Institute of Mental Health on human experimentation on vulnerable subjects. He has consulted with many corporations, not-for-profit organizations and consumer organizations. He is a member of the board of directors of The Keystone Center, the National Center for Policy Research on Women and Families, Octagon, The Franklin Institute, Iron Disorders Foundation and the National Disease Research Interchange. He chaired the advisory committee on bioethics at Glaxo from 2005-8. He is on the food advisory panel for Edelman public relations and co-director of a United Nations/Council of Europe Study on organ trafficking.

He writes a regular column on bioethics for MSNBC.com.[1] He is a frequent guest and commentator on various media outlets.

He is a fellow of the Hastings Center, the New York Academy of Medicine, the College of Physicians of Philadelphia and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is also on the Board of Trustees of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

Caplan is the recipient of many awards and honors including the McGovern Medal of the American Medical Writers Association and the Franklin Award from the City of Philadelphia. He was a person of the Year 2001 from USA Today, one of the fifty most influential people in American health care by Modern Health Care magazine, one of the ten most influential people in America in biotechnology by the National Journal and one of the ten most influential people in the ethics of biotechnology by the editors of Nature Biotechnology.[2] He holds seven honorary degrees from colleges and medical schools.[2] Discover magazine in December, 2008 named him one of the ten most influential people in science.

He is also echoing the views of Nanocyborgasm, as well as those of the vast majority of other medical doctors and experts on this topic in the US and the world today. Do you think they are also "liberal quacks" merely for competely disagreeing with your own views and a handful of ultraconservative political appointees on this topic?

And regarding the existence of the hemophilia lobby:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000054262&year=2010

As well as having a permanent group in DC which champions their causes:

Hemophilia Federation of American

The Hemophilia Federation of America (HFA) champions the rights and protection of people with bleeding disorders. Established in 1994 as a nonprofit 501(c) 3 organization, the HFA has continuously addressed the evolving needs of the bleeding disorders community. The HFA’s ongoing consumer advocacy agenda includes product safety, as well as accessibility, affordability, and availability of the products the individuals of this community require.

Based in Washington, D.C., the HFA works in conjunction with other national and state organizations on behalf of those who have bleeding disorders. Its officers and staff maintain a highly visible presence, representing the bleeding disorders community on Capitol Hill and speaking regularly before the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other key agencies. The HFA strives to educate the community and provide tools that give the community a voice at state and federal legislatures. Visit HFA’s Legislative Action Center to get involved.

HFA member organizations across the country utilize the organization’s collaborative federation to strengthen community support and awareness, develop effective local organizations, and implement valuable community-based programs. These programs include a wide range of adult outreach initiatives, as well as broad-based support for families. HFA’s programs include the Helping Hands, Dads in Action, Teen Connection, Focus on the Feminine, Blood Brotherhood, New Families and DC Intensives.

 

[El_Machinae]

And I really dont care what this Caplan guy says. He sounds like a liberal quack to me.

Maybe when you read expert opinion and find it 'quackery', it's time to change your mind!

"Liberal quack" rofl

 

[MobBoss]

Maybe when you read expert opinion and find it 'quackery', it's time to change your mind!

"Liberal quack" rofl

I find it just a good descriptor as what the other side calls those in favor of keeping the ban. But I do admit it was merely done out of frustration and off the cuff. I concede the point that he isnt a quack and such a label indeed kneejerk and unfair.

But yeah, we should just take one experts opinion because we absolutely know that educated people cant have biased opinions and are absolutely correct all the time. That is, as long as said 'experts' agree with ones on viewpoint eh?

This guy is a single voice. One. Uno. I'm sure he isnt the only one that has his viewpoint, but come on, the implication that he is the only authority on this issue is just silly...and that is indeed the implication being given.

And yet, his opinion it taken to spout unfounded falsehoods like Formaldehyde does when he says:

He is also echoing the views of Nanocyborgasm, as well as those of the vast majority of other medical doctors and experts on this topic in the US and the world today.

There hasnt been one shred of factual evidence given to support this aside from TWO opinions, one Nano's, one this guys. Nor has there been any factual confirmation of the alledged 'ultraconservative appointees' on the panel as well. Thats all pure speculation.

Since that panel he was the head of has continually upheld the ban on MSM from donating blood apparently some other 'experts' dont seem to agree with his viewpoint.

As far as a hemophilia lobby goes.....thats an extremely small lobbying budget in comparison to most lobby. Doesnt seem all that big to me, but you know those hemophiliacs, they're a sneaky bunch!!!

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

That applies to most of the US government.

But not necessarily to analogous government agencies in other countries, who are relatively immune from political intrigue and are independent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I really don't understand why so many are complacent when the Republicans essentially strip the agencies which safeguard us from well-known abuses, such as the EPA, FDA, SEC, etc., of most of their power whenever they control the executive branch. These agencies should never be the pawns of partisan politics, and they should be immune from political appointments and budgetary restrictions beyond a certain fixed limit.