Banned for life: Gay men still can’t donate blood

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
Banned for life: Gay men still can't donate blood

WASHINGTON - Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.

The Food and Drug Administraton reiterated its long-standing policy on its Web site Wednesday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

"I am disappointed, I must confess," said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America's Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation's blood supply.

Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

New, improved HIV tests
In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America's Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.

In a document posted Wednesday, the FDA said it would change its policy if given data that show doing so wouldn't pose a "significant and preventable" risk to blood recipients.

"It is a way of saying, 'Whatever was presented to us was not sufficient to make us change our minds,"' Bianco said.

The FDA said HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect the virus 100 percent of the time. The estimated HIV risk from a unit of blood is currently about one per 2 million in the United States, according to the agency.

Critics of the exclusionary policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays. The FDA recognized the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it's discriminatory.

Anyone who's used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Want to give blood??? Then don't take up a unhealthy lifestyle that can lead to getting dieases and viruses such as HIV and also is morally wrong and against nature. :good!:
 
#3
#3
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Want to give blood??? Then don't take up a unhealthy lifestyle that can lead to getting dieases and viruses such as HIV and also is morally wrong and against nature. :good!:
Click to expand...

this is neither a political, nor a moral debate. There are plenty of heterosexuals with HIV.

As for the issue itself, everyone should be allowed to give blood, then all of the blood given should be tested. This way you do not have to discriminate against a particular group, and you can ensure that all of the blood given is safe for donation.
 
#4
#4
emainvol said:
this is neither a political, nor a moral debate. There are plenty of heterosexuals with HIV.

As for the issue itself, everyone should be allowed to give blood, then all of the blood given should be tested. This way you do not have to discriminate against a particular group, and you can ensure that all of the blood given is safe for donation.
Click to expand...

Where will the money come from to test all the blood?
 
#6
#6
Yes, but wouldn't you consider it waste of money to test a particular segment of society who might have a higher risk of HIV?

Just from a purely business aspect of course.
 
#7
#7
OrangeEmpire said:
Yes, but wouldn't you consider it waste of money to test a particular segment of society who might have a higher risk of HIV?

Just from a purely business aspect of course.
Click to expand...

but wouldn't it be a waste of time to test only a particular segment, when a much larger segment is also at risk?
 
#8
#8
emainvol said:
Good question, but aren't certain tests already performed on all of the blood?
Click to expand...

I would certainly hope so. Heterosexual sex is less likely to result in HIV contraction, so I could see some logic behind the decision. I would have to think that all the blood gets tested anyway, though. Otherwise, we would have heard about someone getting infected from contaminated blood and a huge lawsuit resulting.
 
#9
#9
emainvol said:
this is neither a political, nor a moral debate. There are plenty of heterosexuals with HIV.

As for the issue itself, everyone should be allowed to give blood, then all of the blood given should be tested. This way you do not have to discriminate against a particular group, and you can ensure that all of the blood given is safe for donation.
Click to expand...

Problem with your statement is that in the 1980's our government allowed inmates to donate blood. The inmates initiated in homosexual activity and intravenous drug use which led to normal heterosexuals to get HIV through blood transfusions. So the argument that heterosexual people can get HIV is correct, but alot of them are because of drug use and not sexual preference.

The problem with everyone giving blood is during war or a catastrophe not all blood is tested because it is given on site. So how would you regulate that problem??? If giving blood is now going to be a discrimination fore-front, then someone needs to tell these people to get a brain.
 
#10
#10
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Problem with your statement is that in the 1980's our government allowed inmates to donate blood. The inmates initiated in homosexual activity and intravenous drug use which led to normal heterosexuals to get HIV through blood transfusions. So the argument that heterosexual people can get HIV is correct, but alot of them are because of drug use and not sexual preference.

The problem with everyone giving blood is during war or a catastrophe not all blood is tested because it is given on site. So how would you regulate that problem??? If giving blood is now going to be a discrimination fore-front, then someone needs to tell these people to get a brain.
Click to expand...

No, the reason that a lot of them got HIV is because of irresponsibility. It is the same with a good percentage of people who have contracted the virus
 
#11
#11
g8terh8ter_eric said:
The problem with everyone giving blood is during war or a catastrophe not all blood is tested because it is given on site. So how would you regulate that problem??? If giving blood is now going to be a discrimination fore-front, then someone needs to tell these people to get a brain.
Click to expand...

during war or a catastrophe, if the blood being used is not tested, then there are many more things that can be transmitted without proper testing, so it's really a moot point.
 
#12
#12
Another question should be, should people who have body art be able to give blood? I ask this because they are at a higher risk for hepatitis
 
#13
#13
I want the blood supply as clean as possible. So homosexuals, people who use or have used intravenous drugs, prison inmates, and other groups of people who engage in high-risk activity for your health should not be allowed to give blood. People with tatoos is an iffy question for me, but if you got a butterfly on your ankle I would be ok with that, but if you have a dragon on your entire back and and eagle on the front then no you should not be allowed to donate blood.
 
#14
#14
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I want the blood supply as clean as possible. So homosexuals, people who use or have used intravenous drugs, prison inmates, and other groups of people who engage in high-risk activity for your health should not be allowed to give blood. People with tatoos is an iffy question for me, but if you got a butterfly on your ankle I would be ok with that, but if you have a dragon on your entire back and and eagle on the front then no you should not be allowed to donate blood.
Click to expand...

If you want the blood supply as clean as possible, you should focus on better and faster testing techniques and not banning groups.

And someone with a tattoo that covers their entire back, but had it done with clean needles, is less likely to have hepatitis than the girl with the butterfly done with the dirty needle.
 
#15
#15
my next issue, there are probably those out there that either flat out lie on the pre-donation survey, or don't know what they could be carrying that is dangerous. another reason for better testing.
 
#16
#16
I am all for better testing, but letting everyone get back into donating blood is going to be a bigger nightmare than a blessing.
 
#17
#17
emainvol said:
this is neither a political, nor a moral debate. There are plenty of heterosexuals with HIV.

As for the issue itself, everyone should be allowed to give blood, then all of the blood given should be tested. This way you do not have to discriminate against a particular group, and you can ensure that all of the blood given is safe for donation.
Click to expand...

Here's one of the prison scandals you can find about prison blood, and Bill Clinton is linked to it...

TAINTED BLOOD FROM ARKANSAS . . . .KEYWORDS Clinton

Yet another...
Salon: Bill Clinton and the Canadian tainted-blood scandal

And another...
WorldNetDaily: Clinton blood scandal exposed in new film
 
#18
#18
msm1.gif


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resource...tsheets/msm.htm
 
#20
#20
I could be wrong, but the facts state very plainly that it is completely illogical to allow gay men to donate blood. The chances that they engage in types of acts that are highly conducive to HIV infection is too great.
 
#21
#21
I don't know why people are getting their panties in a twist over this. So what if a higher risk segment of a population [for any disease or virus] is excluded to ensure the safety of the emergency blood supply? It's far better to be safe than sorry - I doubt any of you want to be the one to tell a mother that her child is going to die in a few years because some infected blood 'slipped through'.

Most US citizen who have visited or lived in Europe for more than 3 months [UK] or 6 months [most other countries] are banned from donating blood because of concerns about "Mad Cow Disease".
 
#23
#23
emainvol said:
again, I am not arguing the facts about which group is at a higher risk, I am only saying that with proper testing methods in place, it wouldn't matter who gave blood.
Click to expand...

Which comes back to the root of every thing, money.

:yes:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top