More liberal groups demanding gays be allowed to donate blood

[novasteve]

Gay men should be allowed to donate blood

 

[BlueGin]

Has there been an increase in the number of people infected by HIV from a blood transfusion? How many people were infected with HIV from a blood transfusion in the last 12 months?

You think HIV is the only thing they look for during screening?

Blood Testing

Thank you for proving my point that HIV is not the only thing they test for. Did you have apoint with this?

 

[Esmeralda]

You think HIV is the only thing they look for during screening?

Blood Testing

Thank you for proving my point that HIV is not the only thing they test for. Did you have apoint with this?

Only that HIV is not the only thing that is of concern. But the stats in my link are about what they test blood for after it is collected, before they give it to a patient, not what they test people for or screen people for who are giving blood.

 

[BlueGin]

You didn't read and understand my post, did you. (That's not a question.)

I understood just fine. They will not use blood from high risk individuals. Infact they have a long list of do's and dont's and they basically interview you extensively and test your blood before every donation. If you fall into certain catagories you are out...straight men and women included.

Men and women who are prostitues or have slept with them. People who have used drugs. Men or women who have traveled to countries that have a high occurance of infectious disease including HIV.

Other examples are...you can not give blood if you have had tatoos,certain cosmetic treatments, growth hormone ,fertility treatments or acupuncture within a certain time frame (usually around 6 months to a year before).

Can't if you have had hepitius or Jaundice .

It's not just gay = bad Straight = good. Even though you are trying to paint it that way.

Once more, from the top: anyone in those groups CAN donate. How? Simple: LIE. Do not tell them you are gay/a hooker/lived a year in London.

Already addressed. Anyone can lie to be able to donate blood. But why would you want to?

Exactly.
Gay men have donated blood for years - they simply lie about their orientation. There is no way to prove someone is gay, anyway. I don't know how conservatives expect to ban homosexuals from donating blood when it has never been possible.

Anyone can lie...I guess if you want to put the public at risk to prove a point. Go for it.

Explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a gay man in a mutually-monogamous relationship for 20 years donating blood puts anyone at risk. Be specific.

All gay men have been in a mutually/monogamous relationship for 20 years? How would the screeners know you werent lying just to donate blood? They are in a large risk group banned by the FDA...so they are out. Simple. The FDA has already stated that they will change policy only after tests have proven excusively that the homosexual community are no longer part of a risk group. So far they still are.

 

[BlueGin]

Blood Testing

Thank you for proving my point that HIV is not the only thing they test for. Did you have apoint with this?

Only that HIV is not the only thing that is of concern. But the stats in my link are about what they test blood for after it is collected, before they give it to a patient, not what they test people for or screen people for who are giving blood.

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

 

[Glensather]

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

Also, it's also a huge waste of time.
Look, I hate to sound like a homophobe, because I'm not, but there is a precedent for it. Read this link: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

It's completely unfair, but until we rid people of the virus, then we're going to have to cut off people from donating blood who are at-risk. Like if it turned out that people of Asian descent had some sort of horrible disease in their bloodstream (lets call it Chinkinitus), then I'd have no choice but to suck it up and not donate until they figured something out.

 

[Esmeralda]

Thank you for proving my point that HIV is not the only thing they test for. Did you have apoint with this?

Only that HIV is not the only thing that is of concern. But the stats in my link are about what they test blood for after it is collected, before they give it to a patient, not what they test people for or screen people for who are giving blood.

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

You are looking for an argument where there is none. I was simply contributing information.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

Also, it's also a huge waste of time.
Look, I hate to sound like a homophobe, because I'm not, but there is a precedent for it. Read this link: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

It's completely unfair, but until we rid people of the virus, then we're going to have to cut off people from donating blood who are at-risk. Like if it turned out that people of Asian descent had some sort of horrible disease in their bloodstream (lets call it Chinkinitus), then I'd have no choice but to suck it up and not donate until they figured something out.

The thing is, it isn't only gays who have HIV. Prostitutes often have it. Drug uses often have it. And 'ordinary' people have it too, in increasing numbers.

 

[Glensather]

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

Also, it's also a huge waste of time.
Look, I hate to sound like a homophobe, because I'm not, but there is a precedent for it. Read this link: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

It's completely unfair, but until we rid people of the virus, then we're going to have to cut off people from donating blood who are at-risk. Like if it turned out that people of Asian descent had some sort of horrible disease in their bloodstream (lets call it Chinkinitus), then I'd have no choice but to suck it up and not donate until they figured something out.

The thing is, it isn't only gays who have HIV. Prostitutes often have it. Drug uses often have it. And 'ordinary' people have it too, in increasing numbers.

True, but not to the overwhelming numbers that homosexual males have it.
It sucks, but this is what happens when you don't figure out if you're partner has HIV or not, and according to the CDC's numbers, apparently there's a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy amongst gay men about whether or not one has HIV/AIDS.

 

[novasteve]

Are not those people excluded from donating blood? Other than gay men, the only higher risk group are transgendered women. This is a public safety issue. If it were a bigotry issue, they would exclude lesbians from donating blood, but due to the statistics and biology, lesbians are probably one of the lowest risk groups out there.

 

[novasteve]

Also, it's also a huge waste of time.
Look, I hate to sound like a homophobe, because I'm not, but there is a precedent for it. Read this link: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

It's completely unfair, but until we rid people of the virus, then we're going to have to cut off people from donating blood who are at-risk. Like if it turned out that people of Asian descent had some sort of horrible disease in their bloodstream (lets call it Chinkinitus), then I'd have no choice but to suck it up and not donate until they figured something out.

The thing is, it isn't only gays who have HIV. Prostitutes often have it. Drug uses often have it. And 'ordinary' people have it too, in increasing numbers.

True, but not to the overwhelming numbers that homosexual males have it.
It sucks, but this is what happens when you don't figure out if you're partner has HIV or not, and according to the CDC's numbers, apparently there's a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy amongst gay men about whether or not one has HIV/AIDS.

I hope it's a small minority, but there are some that actively seek out HIV infections

Gay subculture in 'bug chase' sees HIV as desirable - National - theage.com.au

 

[BlueGin]

Only that HIV is not the only thing that is of concern. But the stats in my link are about what they test blood for after it is collected, before they give it to a patient, not what they test people for or screen people for who are giving blood.

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

You are looking for an argument where there is none. I was simply contributing information.

Just asking for clarification since you only provided a link and no commentary.

 

[BlueGin]

Yes. And? Who stated that they didn't test blood before giving it to patients?

Also, it's also a huge waste of time.
Look, I hate to sound like a homophobe, because I'm not, but there is a precedent for it. Read this link: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

It's completely unfair, but until we rid people of the virus, then we're going to have to cut off people from donating blood who are at-risk. Like if it turned out that people of Asian descent had some sort of horrible disease in their bloodstream (lets call it Chinkinitus), then I'd have no choice but to suck it up and not donate until they figured something out.

The thing is, it isn't only gays who have HIV. Prostitutes often have it. Drug uses often have it. And 'ordinary' people have it too, in increasing numbers.

Prostitutes (people who sleep with them) and drug users are also banned for life from making blood donations.

 

[Glensather]

Are not those people excluded from donating blood? Other than gay men, the only higher risk group are transgendered women. This is a public safety issue. If it were a bigotry issue, they would exclude lesbians from donating blood, but due to the statistics and biology, lesbians are probably one of the lowest risk groups out there.

Ironic, isn't it? Being a lesbian is one of the safest ways to ensure you can't get AIDS. Someone is laughing.

I hope it's a small minority, but there are some that actively seek out HIV infections

Gay subculture in 'bug chase' sees HIV as desirable - National - theage.com.au

There isn't a facepalm big enough for this (not at you, mind, at what this article talks about).

 

[Katzndogz]

When AIDS was first discovered, gay activists went on a campaign to convince the public that AIDS would spread throughout the world and no one was safe. It didn't matter who you were or where you were, everyone was at risk from AIDS. This was rejected by the majority of individuals who weren't promiscuous or use IV drugs. The activists howled. AIDS would break through the heterosexual barrier and infect even the most religious and monogamous. The religious and monogamous laughed. It just never happened. Some gay dentists tried to help it along by infecting patients. Even that didn't work. It just imposed more stringent sterilization requirements on dentists.

Surprisingly enough, gay activists are still trying to convince people of the risk. Only this time, it's to permit those who are really at risk the ability to spread infection to those who aren't allowed a choice in the matter.

 

[Glensather]

When AIDS was first discovered, gay activists went on a campaign to convince the public that AIDS would spread throughout the world and no one was safe. It didn't matter who you were or where you were, everyone was at risk from AIDS. This was rejected by the majority of individuals who weren't promiscuous or use IV drugs. The activists howled. AIDS would break through the heterosexual barrier and infect even the most religious and monogamous. The religious and monogamous laughed. It just never happened. Some gay dentists tried to help it along by infecting patients. Even that didn't work. It just imposed more stringent sterilization requirements on dentists.

Surprisingly enough, gay activists are still trying to convince people of the risk. Only this time, it's to permit those who are really at risk the ability to spread infection to those who aren't allowed a choice in the matter.

The problem with that statement is that... well, HIV did spread into the heterosexual population. All it takes is one faulty blood test when getting a transfusion, or one dirty needle that managed to slip back in, and suddenly you have the disease, and it doesn't matter if you're the most faithful, monogamous person on Earth.

 

[Rozman]

If the blood can be tested and I'm sure it is and it passes I'm guessing it's good to go.
If a person is infected the night before the blood test I can only guess that the blood taken
the day after is still good.The person may take a while to become inflicted then at that point
the blood test will probably show a problem.

Again this is a guess on my part.
With blood I'm hoping people know what the fuck they are doing.

But I'm sure mistakes are made all the time.

It's a crap shoot whether you walk out of a hospital in better shape then when you walked in anyway.

If we lived in Cuba with the best health care system in the world (according to Sean Penn) then it would be different.

 

[Glensather]

As an aside, the HIV/AIDS virus can lie dormant within a person's body for years before it's discovered, so that blood transfusion might not give you AIDS till you passed it to your children.

HIV Hides from the Immune System

 

[novasteve]

When AIDS was first discovered, gay activists went on a campaign to convince the public that AIDS would spread throughout the world and no one was safe. It didn't matter who you were or where you were, everyone was at risk from AIDS. This was rejected by the majority of individuals who weren't promiscuous or use IV drugs. The activists howled. AIDS would break through the heterosexual barrier and infect even the most religious and monogamous. The religious and monogamous laughed. It just never happened. Some gay dentists tried to help it along by infecting patients. Even that didn't work. It just imposed more stringent sterilization requirements on dentists.

Surprisingly enough, gay activists are still trying to convince people of the risk. Only this time, it's to permit those who are really at risk the ability to spread infection to those who aren't allowed a choice in the matter.

Didn't gay groups try to destroy Kimberly Bergalis after she died, to show that she didn't get HIV from her dentist? They even looked up her sexual history, but none of the guys hse had sex with had HIV. Can you imagine doing that to a gay person?

 

[Katzndogz]

When AIDS was first discovered, gay activists went on a campaign to convince the public that AIDS would spread throughout the world and no one was safe. It didn't matter who you were or where you were, everyone was at risk from AIDS. This was rejected by the majority of individuals who weren't promiscuous or use IV drugs. The activists howled. AIDS would break through the heterosexual barrier and infect even the most religious and monogamous. The religious and monogamous laughed. It just never happened. Some gay dentists tried to help it along by infecting patients. Even that didn't work. It just imposed more stringent sterilization requirements on dentists.

Surprisingly enough, gay activists are still trying to convince people of the risk. Only this time, it's to permit those who are really at risk the ability to spread infection to those who aren't allowed a choice in the matter.

The problem with that statement is that... well, HIV did spread into the heterosexual population. All it takes is one faulty blood test when getting a transfusion, or one dirty needle that managed to slip back in, and suddenly you have the disease, and it doesn't matter if you're the most faithful, monogamous person on Earth.

The explosion of AIDS cases never happened. You do understand that don't you. It never happened. AIDS transmission needed something else, like medical negligence or a deliberate act. The claim was based on the assumption and understanding that everyone is promiscuous. Gays are notoriously promiscuous, even in the most committed of relationships. They assume that all men feel the way they do. Fidelity is a lie that men tell their wives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0