NationStates Jolt Archive

Linky. (http://www.redcross.org/search/include/arcautosuggest.asp?docid=975047&sDBs=AllSite&results=10&links=GAI&imgflg=&sumflg=&option=showcontent)

FDA Committee Votes Against Relaxing Donor Ban
By Becky Orfinger , Staff Writer

For the past 15 years, any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 — even once — has been permanently banned from donating blood because of the high prevalence of AIDS in the gay male population.

Fine. Let's ban the blacks from donating blood too because blacks have a high prevalence of AIDS. *thinks.* Nah... only ban the ones who actually do have AIDS. We need all the HIV-negative blood we can get.

At a meeting yesterday of an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration, government scientists voted to uphold this policy, cited as discriminatory by many gay rights activists. FDA medical officer Andrew Dayton asked the Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) whether it was prudent to change the donor deferral policy to ban only men who disclosed having sex with another man within the last five years. Dayton and his colleagues analyzed the projected risk that relaxing the donor deferral rule would have on the nation's blood supply and presented the committee with this data. After much deliberation, the BPAC members voted 7 to 6 to maintain the current deferral policy.

Dayton seems a smart enough guy, but did he really have to ASK if it was prudent? Of course it is! There's no HIV test in the world that won't pick up a virus that's been floating around for five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_immune_deficiency_syndrome#HIV_test
Many people are unaware that they are infected with HIV. Less than 1% of the sexually active urban population in Africa has been tested, and this proportion is even lower in rural populations. Furthermore, only 0.5% of pregnant women attending urban health facilities are counseled, tested or receive their test results. Again, this proportion is even lower in rural health facilities. Therefore, donor blood and blood products used in medicine and medical research are screened for HIV. Typical HIV tests, including the HIV enzyme immunoassay and the Western blot assay, detect HIV antibodies in serum, plasma, oral fluid, dried blood spot or urine of patients. However, the window period (the time between initial infection and the development of detectable antibodies against the infection) can vary. This is why it can take 3–6 months to seroconvert and test positive. Commercially available tests to detect other HIV antigens, HIV-RNA, and HIV-DNA in order to detect HIV infection prior to the development of detectable antibodies are available. For the diagnosis of HIV infection these assays are not specifically approved, but are nonetheless routinely used in developed countries.

Try deferring them for six months, then. Jesus. No sense in permanently cutting off a source of blood when we're already low.

Dr. Rebecca Haley, interim chief medical officer for the American Red Cross, told the committee that the Red Cross did not support changing the current ban on blood donation by from men who have engaged in homosexual behavior during the past 24 years because of the risk of introducing HIV-positive blood into the national blood supply.

I repeat: Either ban other high-risk groups like blacks, or ban only those who actually test positive for AIDS. HIV-negative blood from a gay person is as good as HIV-negative blood from a straight person.

Although Dayton's risk analysis found that "introduction of a five year floating deferral for male-to-male sexual behavior, even using conservative estimates, would result in minimal increased morbidity in the blood supply by HIV," the Red Cross urged caution in changing a policy that so far has kept the blood supply virtually free of tainted blood.

So the FDA's own study finds that a five-year deferral won't increase the HIV rate, and the Red Cross is too homophobic to accept a change for fear that gay blood might make it into the banks.

CNN "If the Public Health Service could assure us that introducing previously deferred donors into the pool could be accommodated without increasing risk, the American Red Cross would support appropriate actions to do so," Haley said.

The FDA did. The ARC didn't.

Dayton estimated that there are 62,300 men who want to donate blood, but are prohibited from doing so by the current law. Considering the known incidence and prevalence rates of HIV infection in this population, he said, changing to a five-year deferral policy could potentially introduce 1,246 units of HIV-positive blood into the system to be screened. Testing done on each of these units would likely result in an added 1.7 units of HIV-infected blood into the nation's blood supply, experts said at the meeting. Changing to a one-year deferral policy — another option that was presented to the FDA for review — would add about 112,000 additional HIV-positive blood units to the blood system for testing. After screening, approximately 6 additional units of HIV-positive blood units would enter the blood supply, according to Dayton's estimation. CNN The serological tests routinely performed on all donated blood to detect HIV and other blood-borne viruses are sensitive enough to prevent all but about 10 HIV-infected units from entering the blood supply each year, said Dr. Michael Busch of the University of California-San Francisco. The infected blood that does defy the rigorous testing protocol causes two to three HIV infections each year, he said. Dr. Adrienne Smith, of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, told the committee that the current donor ban stigmatizes gay men. She said that it is unfair that donors who disclose having engaged in risky heterosexual behavior are only deferred from donating for a year, not for a lifetime. "Like risks should be treated alike," Smith said. But Dr. Jay Epstein, director of the FDA's Office of Blood Research and Review, said that epidemiological data has clearly shown that males who engage in high-risk sexual behavior are much more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to become infected with HIV. Haley also stressed to the committee that the decision to uphold the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with other men should be based on scientific evidence, not societal pressures. "The safety of the blood supply — and the patients we ultimately serve — must be our number one priority. This is a public health issue. Not a social policy issue," she told the committee. Back to News Archives | Main News Page © Copyright 2000, The American National Red Cross. All Rights Reserved. Our Privacy Policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_immune_deficiency_syndrome#Stigma

In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice such as anti-homosexual attitudes. There is also a perceived association between all male-male sexual behavior and AIDS, even sex between two uninfected men.

Those most likely to hold misconceptions about HIV transmission and to harbor HIV/AIDS stigma are less educated people and people with high levels of religiosity or conservative political ideology.

So, the ARC's position is based on a homophobic, uneducated, and conservative premise. Their position is clearly fallacious. They don't ask if you engaged in anal sex (the riskiest sexual activity), oral sex (among the safest) or used a condom (which significantly reduces disease transmission) with a member of the opposite sex. Hell, anal sex with a woman is probably riskier, simply because women are smaller and easier to injure. They just ask if a man had sex with another man. To the ARC, oral sex with a condom is as risky as barebacking, but straight sex is A-OK with them. Words fail me.

What the? That's a big block of text, and the link to it's source doesn't work.

Typically, one quotes the article.

I don't particularly see anything in there that shows them endorsing homophobia

They also ban you from being a donor if you've been to ruins in Mexico. It doesn't matter whether you have malaria or not, it matters that you face an elevated risk.

They can't screen every blood sample for every disease, so they attempt to weed the diseases out through the donors.

A straight person can have AIDS just as much as a gay person can, so what's the justification for just flat-out barring any gay person from giving blood?

This pissed my boyfriend off to no end a while back...

A straight person can have AIDS just as much as a gay person can, so what's the justification for just flat-out barring any gay person from giving blood?

This pissed my boyfriend off to no end a while back...

They can develop AIDS just the same but the risks are different for different groups.

Every unit of blood is tested for AIDS. It said so right in the big article I quoted.

The serological tests routinely performed on all donated blood to detect HIV and other blood-borne viruses are sensitive enough to prevent all but about 10 HIV-infected units from entering the blood supply each year, said Dr. Michael Busch of the University of California-San Francisco.

Since they test it anyway, and the blood seroconverts to test positive six months after infection, a six-month deferral after ANY risky sexual act, gay or straight, is reasonable.

Every unit of blood is tested for AIDS. It said so right in the big article I quoted.



It also points out that it is not always picked up by the screening

And the word you are looking for is HIV not AIDS

...

We're running low on blood?

...

Damn. Guess it's time for me to donate again...and rant at the FDA for being a bunch of homophobic fucks.

People like my boyfriend, who actually are willing to donate their blood (unlike me), should not be turned away just because people have this stereotypical image stuck in their heads of gay people being infested with horrendous diseases.

There's been a similar problem in the UK, gay men are similarly discriminated against, but the government has maintained the ban despite an official petition, citing similar reasons to this.

If I gave blood I'd stop giving blood until they dropped their racism. I don't, however, so that wouldn't change a thing.

If I gave blood I'd stop giving blood until they dropped their racism. I don't, however, so that wouldn't change a thing.

Right, because homo-sexuals are their own race. :rolleyes:

But what if the poor homophobes find out they got icky gay blood and get violently sick?

But what if the poor homophobes find out they got icky gay blood and get violently sick?

Straw man argument. This has nothing to do with homophobia, and everything to do with HIV.

Some people see discrimination around every corner, even if there is none to be seen.

Are there any statistics on which demographic groups are most likely to have HIV? I seem to remember reading a while ago that hetrosexual Asian women were more likely to have HIV than homosexuals.

Dayton seems a smart enough guy, but did he really have to ASK if it was prudent? Of course it is! There's no HIV test in the world that won't pick up a virus that's been floating around for five years.

Uh... five years? AIDS has been recognized as a disease since June 5, 1981, and HIV was recognized in December of the same year... that's almost closer to fifty years than five.

Uh... five years? AIDS has been recognized as a disease since June 5, 1981, and HIV was recognized in December of the same year... that's almost closer to fifty years than five.

He wasn't referring to AIDS, but rather to the article quoted aboce that statement:


Quote:
At a meeting yesterday of an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration, government scientists voted to uphold this policy, cited as discriminatory by many gay rights activists. FDA medical officer Andrew Dayton asked the Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) whether it was prudent to change the donor deferral policy to ban only men who disclosed [b]having sex with another man within the last five years.[b] Dayton and his colleagues analyzed the projected risk that relaxing the donor deferral rule would have on the nation's blood supply and presented the committee with this data. After much deliberation, the BPAC members voted 7 to 6 to maintain the current deferral policy.
Dayton seems a smart enough guy, but did he really have to ASK if it was prudent? Of course it is! There's no HIV test in the world that won't pick up a virus that's been floating around for five years.

Right, because homo-sexuals are their own race. :rolleyes:

No, they're not a race, so one would say "bigotry" instead of racism.

Of course, I will correct you in your incorrect usage of a hyphen.
Don't bother correcting others when you make mistakes too.

People like my boyfriend, who actually are willing to donate their blood (unlike me), should not be turned away just because people have this stereotypical image stuck in their heads of gay people being infested with horrendous diseases.

As it says in the quoted article, they aren't basing their decisions on stereotypical views. They're basing them on epidemiological data, etc. I'll agree that they should extend their bans to heterosexuals who engage in risk sex but that is an entirely different issue

There's been a similar problem in the UK, gay men are similarly discriminated against, but the government has maintained the ban despite an official petition, citing similar reasons to this.

Petition by who?

I honestly don't think this is homophobia in the sense that we would normally think about it. It is based in epidemiological data.

I also think that the regulations, as they now stand, are doing little but keeping people from giving blood. If I were to engage in unprotected anal sex - particularly promiscuously - I would be just as much of a risk as a homosexual man who had done the same - and much more of a risk than most homosexual men. The questions they ask should be much more tailored than they are. The risky sex acts themselves should be in question, not the sexual orientation of the donor, and I see no reason for a lifetime ban.

In the last statistics I saw, heterosexual black women were most at risk for HIV infection. Should we add the question, "Are you a black woman who has had sex with a man?"? Or should we recognize that risky sex acts are the problem, not the color of someone's skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation?

It's not homophobic, just outdated. That question is geared towards the HIV/AIDS situation of the early and mid 1980's, when the vast majority of HIV infections and the highest infection rates were among homosexuals and risky behavior was much more common with little or not effort put in to safer sex practices. So, it made perfect sense to disqualify a man who had sex with another man in the 1980's because not only was HIV most common in the gay community but it was far less likely that the man in question used safer sex practices to reduce the risk of contamination.

Today, the situation is different. HIV has spread far beyond the gay community and the risk of infection has much more to do with sexual behavior and practices rather than sexuality itself. In fact, the gay community has made massive progress in safer sex education and the amount of high-risk behavior is far lower now than it was in the 1980's.

I can't donate, and from what I've been told, this may be a lifetime ban. Seems that I lived in England for too long during the "mad cow" years.

So, does that make the ARC and FDA Anglophobes as well? ;)

I think the timeframes imposed on homosexuals for HIV are ridiculous, especially since all blood is tested for it, but it's not overly surprising - they don't want 'em sharing marriage, why should they share blood?

I think the timeframes imposed on homosexuals for HIV are ridiculous, especially since all blood is tested for it, but it's not overly surprising - they don't want 'em sharing marriage, why should they share blood?

Its tested for but it can be missed.

Straw man argument.
Humour.

Some people see discrimination around every corner, even if there is none to be seen.
There's quite clearly discrimination here. Unless you have another word for excluding gay people from donating blood for no good reason.

Since they test it anyway, and the blood seroconverts to test positive six months after infection, a six-month deferral after ANY risky sexual act, gay or straight, is reasonable.

define a risky sexual act.

isn't all sex risky?

you think only the celibate can provide enough donated blood for everyone?

Humour.


There's quite clearly discrimination here. Unless you have another word for excluding gay people from donating blood for no good reason.

Thats the debatable bit

define a risky sexual act.

isn't all sex risky?

you think only the celibate can provide enough donated blood for everyone?

Anal sex and sex without condoms seem like a good start

define a risky sexual act.

isn't all sex risky?

you think only the celibate can provide enough donated blood for everyone?
I'd guess that it means unprotected and involving some form of fluid swapping.

define a risky sexual act.

isn't all sex risky?

you think only the celibate can provide enough donated blood for everyone?

Some sex is riskier than others when we're talking about virus transmission. Unprotected sex is more risky than sex with a condom/dental dam/etc. Anal sex is more risky than vaginal which is more risky than oral. Promiscuous sex increases your chances of becoming infected over being in a monogamous relationship. And so on....

I think promiscuity or unprotected "one-night-stand" type sex would be a better marker of risk than "Hey, you're a man who has, at some point in time, had sex with a man!"

um.. I'm not seeing any of this "homophobia" in the story. They keep a lot of people from giving blood, for many, many different reasons. I don't see the issue.

They're not taking it far enough! You've gotta protect against all this stuff! Only straight, white virgins who have never left their hometown and have never been to the hospital should be allowed to donate!

They're not taking it far enough! You've gotta protect against all this stuff! Only straight, white virgins who have never left their hometown and have never been to the hospital should be allowed to donate!

They ban people that have been to certain portions of Europe for certain amounts of time during certain years from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA Europaphobes? They ban people that have been to certain portions of South America for a certain time period from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA South Americaphobes?

Saying that the ARC and FDA taking precautions from admitting people engaged in homosexual activity during a certain period of time to give blood is homophobic is just silly.

They ban people that have been to certain portions of Europe for certain amounts of time during certain years from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA Europaphobes? They ban people that have been to certain portions of South America for a certain time period from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA South Americaphobes?

Saying that the ARC and FDA taking precautions from admitting people engaged in homosexual activity during a certain period of time to give blood is homophobic is just silly.

If you say so, Adolph.:rolleyes:

They ban people that have been to certain portions of Europe for certain amounts of time during certain years from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA Europaphobes? They ban people that have been to certain portions of South America for a certain time period from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA South Americaphobes?

Saying that the ARC and FDA taking precautions from admitting people engaged in homosexual activity during a certain period of time to give blood is homophobic is just silly.

So why are they preventing gay people from donating blood? It must be because they think that gay people have a lot of unprotected sex with a lot of different partners, and are therefore very likely to be HIV positive.

Unless they just don't like gay people. Either way they're discriminating against gay people.

I wonder if anyone would be even considering defending them if they decided that black people couldn't donate blood. Somehow I doubt it.

If you say so, Adolph.:rolleyes:

Yes, because a person defending the disqualification of homosexuals who have had sex with other men from giving blood is clearly equal to the man who presided over the mass murder of 12 million people and launched the most destructive war in human history.:rolleyes:

It's a policy that made sense in the past but is now outdated and should be change. It's not homophobic, just no longer an appropriate policy due to the massive change in the demographics of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Yes, because a person defending the disqualification of homosexuals who have had sex with other men from giving blood is clearly equal to the man who presided over the mass murder of 12 million people and launched the most destructive war in human history.:rolleyes:

It's a policy that made sense in the past but is now outdated and should be change. It's not homophobic, just no longer an appropriate policy due to the massive change in the demographics of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

I think it's the fact that it hasn't been changed is what appears homophobic about it.

A shame. When I went to have my blood tested, the nurse said my cell count was good and I should really consider donating blood.

But I guess that can't happen. Seems like I'm just too gay to save someone's life.

A shame. When I went to have my blood tested, the nurse said my cell count was good and I should really consider donating blood.

But I guess that can't happen. Seems like I'm just too gay to save someone's life.

I wonder what the consequences of lying when donating blood would be?

I wonder what the consequences of lying when donating blood would be?

Irrelevant. I'm not going to lie about who I am and, more importantly, pretend the person I love more than anything doesn't exist.

I wonder what the consequences of lying when donating blood would be?

Its not like they're going to find out unless you admit it

That I would agree with. But then again, I personally feel it's more likely they did it to appease the donors rather than any bias of their own; I could literally see some of the extreme conservative churches and other religious institutions boycotting blood drives because they allow sexually active homosexuals to give blood.

They have said themselves though that they didn't want pressure from society from influencing their decision

If you say so, Adolph.:rolleyes:

God wins!

I mean...Godwin!

I think it's the fact that it hasn't been changed is what appears homophobic about it.

That I would agree with. But then again, I personally feel it's more likely they did it to appease the donors rather than any bias of their own; I could literally see some of the extreme conservative churches and other religious institutions boycotting blood drives because they allow sexually active homosexuals to give blood.

What the gay community should do is get a massive group of gay men together, say 10,000 or so, and they should all donate blood and lie about it.

Then, 6 months or a year later, the entire group should announce that they did it. By that point the blood should have gotten to the people who need it, and when accidental infections of HIV don't increase, there's your proof that this is nothing more than homophobia.

What the gay community should do is get a massive group of gay men together, say 10,000 or so, and they should all donate blood and lie about it.

Then, 6 months or a year later, the entire group should announce that they did it. By that point the blood should have gotten to the people who need it, and when accidental infections of HIV don't increase, there's your proof that this is nothing more than homophobia.

What if HIV infections do increase, they get sued into oblivion, and public acceptance of homosexuals is set back a hundred years?

What if HIV infections do increase, they get sued into oblivion, and public acceptance of homosexuals is set back a hundred years?

It goes without saying that the group would have been pre-screened for HIV before pulling this stunt.

It goes without saying that the group would have been pre-screened for HIV before pulling this stunt.

They screen the blood but it can be missed. Thats the worry already

It goes without saying that the group would have been pre-screened for HIV before pulling this stunt.

Most people would still be rather irritated about them doing such a thing.

Irrelevant. I'm not going to lie about who I am and, more importantly, pretend the person I love more than anything doesn't exist.

I was just thinking that it'd be amusing to forget to mention that you're gay until after they've drawn the blood.

"Oh, I guess you'lll have to give that blood back, I'm gay you see. Well, hop to it"

The website of 10 downing street, it has an official petition page: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

The part that seems discriminatory is the fact the ruling is outdated, but yet they refuse to update it to something more suitable for this decade.

I personally prefer the idea that the scientists involved shouldn't be under any social pressure to change their decision. They are the people best suited to make such a judgement. Just my opinion though

Petition by who?

The website of 10 downing street, it has an official petition page: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

The part that seems discriminatory is the fact the ruling is outdated, but yet they refuse to update it to something more suitable for this decade.

Come on homosexuals, you can get off the cross.

Oh boo-hoo, you can't donate blood; the American government, the FDA, and why not include the whole world hates you. Are those mean religious fundamentalists infringing on your rights by not letting you donate blood? Here you go, a hanky...

This is above and beyond stupidity, the world as we know it is not coming to an end because the FDA passes on homosexual blood; if I had to pick a life with HIV, or death due to blood loss, you better believe I'd want to be dead.

They ban people that have been to certain portions of Europe for certain amounts of time during certain years from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA Europaphobes? They ban people that have been to certain portions of South America for a certain time period from giving blood. Does that make the ARC and FDA South Americaphobes?

No, but then again, the risk factors they are worried about could have affected anyone traveling in those countries. No extraordinary behavior would have been necessary.

Saying that the ARC and FDA taking precautions from admitting people engaged in homosexual activity during a certain period of time to give blood is homophobic is just silly.

First of all, that "certain period of time" is "even once in the past 30 years." There is no other restriction with that type of time limit. Even the restrictions you mention require that you live or travel in those areas for a significant amount of time (I believe it is 3 months for Britain, as an example).

Second of all, homosexual activity, in and of itself, is not a risk factor. Promiscuous or unprotected sexual activity - whether homosexual or heterosexual - is. As such, there is no reason to prohibit all homosexual men from giving blood, any more than there is any reason to prohibit all of the highest risk group - black heterosexual women - from doing so.

This is above and beyond stupidity, the world as we know it is not coming to an end because the FDA passes on homosexual blood; if I had to pick a life with HIV, or death due to blood loss, you better believe I'd want to be dead.

Really? The prognosis isn't always as bad as you think

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/838DDDA5-614F-488A-BE41-BA4DBE1AA4EC.asp

Come on homosexuals, you can get off the cross.
I'm sure they'd love to, but there's the problem with those nails, you know?

Oh boo-hoo, you can't donate blood; the American government, the FDA, and why not include the whole world hates you. Are those mean religious fundamentalists infringing on your rights by not letting you donate blood? Here you go, a hanky...
What point are you trying to make here? Surely you can't be suggesting that gay people should just be happy with the limited rights they have now?

This is above and beyond stupidity, the world as we know it is not coming to an end because the FDA passes on homosexual blood;[
Nobody is suggesting it will. The world won't end if police stop arresting people, that doesn't mean that wouldn't be worth complaining about.
if I had to pick a life with HIV, or death due to blood loss, you better believe I'd want to be dead.

How fortunate for you that all donated blood is screened for HIV.

On an unrelated not, your sig is too long. Sigs are limited to 8 lines. :)

How fortunate for you that all donated blood is screened for HIV.

On an unrelated not, your sig is too long. Sigs are limited to 8 lines. :)

I'm hating this point which is brought up over and over. The screening is fallable. Thats why they feel such a decision needs to be made. Whether you feel that the decision is justified is a totally different point

Come on homosexuals, you can get off the cross.

Oh boo-hoo, you can't donate blood; the American government, the FDA, and why not include the whole world hates you. Are those mean religious fundamentalists infringing on your rights by not letting you donate blood? Here you go, a hanky...

This is above and beyond stupidity, the world as we know it is not coming to an end because the FDA passes on homosexual blood; if I had to pick a life with HIV, or death due to blood loss, you better believe I'd want to be dead.

1. Not all homosexuals have HIV.

2. Stop with the patronising tone.

3. Discrimation is what is stupid.

I wasn't really talking about life span, which is important, don't get me wrong. What I was more concerned about was that you couldn't have sex, ever, if you got HIV. I honestly wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I did, because even though there is protection, it could have gotten messed up or something... So no sex, ever, would suck, making HIV bad to have, even if you get to exist for a couple of years.

There is a lot more to life than sex though. Depends on the emphasis you place on it I suppose

Really? The prognosis isn't always as bad as you think

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/838DDDA5-614F-488A-BE41-BA4DBE1AA4EC.asp

I wasn't really talking about life span, which is important, don't get me wrong. What I was more concerned about was that you couldn't have sex, ever, if you got HIV. I honestly wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I did, because even though there is protection, it could have gotten messed up or something... So no sex, ever, would suck, making HIV bad to have, even if you get to exist for a couple of years.

I have to go, love to stay and debate, but I'll end on this note: even if you could, would you? I doubt that, if granted, homosexuals would be flying out of their houses to the nearest blood blank in a bliss knowing that this unalienable right had been granted.

FDA, keep your shit together, brush aside silly minorities that get all offended when you actually have a backbone.

Nice to have someone hurting their side of the argument like this. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

I'm hating this point which is brought up over and over. The screening is fallable. Thats why they feel such a decision needs to be made. Whether you feel that the decision is justified is a totally different point

Straight people are just as capable of contracting HIV, why aren't they refusing to let anyone who's ever had sex donate blood? Why aren't they refusing to let people who've ever used a needle donate blood? Why isn't there a blanket ban on anyone who could possibly be HIV positive donating blood?

I have to go, love to stay and debate, but I'll end on this note: even if you could, would you? I doubt that, if granted, homosexuals would be flying out of their houses to the nearest blood blank in a bliss knowing that this unalienable right had been granted.

FDA, keep your shit together, brush aside silly minorities that get all offended when you actually have a backbone.

I have to go, love to stay and debate, but I'll end on this note: even if you could, would you?
Why wouldn't they?
I doubt that, if granted, homosexuals would be flying out of their houses to the nearest blood blank in a bliss knowing that this unalienable right had been granted.
I doubt black people were rushing to sit at the front of the bus.

FDA, keep your shit together, brush aside silly minorities that get all offended when you actually have a backbone.

They might have a backbone, it's the brain I have doubts about.

Straight people are just as capable of contracting HIV, why aren't they refusing to let anyone who's ever had sex donate blood?

I've covered this below

Why aren't they refusing to let people who've ever used a needle donate blood?

You mean anyone who has ever shared a needle and I think they already do that.

Why isn't there a blanket ban on anyone who could possibly be HIV positive donating blood?

That would be everyone really so their logic is that they need to remove risk groups from donation. Disagree with their logic if you want. I can understand both sides of this argument

Being a second class citizen isn't fun, just because of my sexual orientation I am forced to lie about it to medical professionals so that my insurance doesn't go through the roof, so that I may donate blood to benefit others, and a number of other things I'd rather not have to lie about. In order for me to be treated like a normal citizen, I'm not allowed to be gay.

It's pretty much the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Because if we're screening people due to "risk factors"; which they could easily apply to different races and probably creeds, than we might as well have different drinking fountains and start measuring skulls.

It's stupidity. It's segregation.

I have to go, love to stay and debate, but I'll end on this note: even if you could, would you? I doubt that, if granted, homosexuals would be flying out of their houses to the nearest blood blank in a bliss knowing that this unalienable right had been granted.

FDA, keep your shit together, brush aside silly minorities that get all offended when you actually have a backbone.

I'm sure many homosexuals (and bisexuals for that matter) would want to give blood, and it would be very useful to the blood banks.

Having a backbone and standing by a decision is worthless when that decision is discriminatory. There is no need for a blanket ban on homosexuals giving blood as the risk of HIV is determined more by your activities than sexuality. And stop with this 'silly minorities' nonsense.

I've covered this below



You mean anyone who has ever shared a needle and I think they already do that.



That would be everyone really so their logic is that they need to remove risk groups from donation. Disagree with their logic if you want. I can understand both sides of this argument

I understand, I'm simply lost as to why gay people are a risk group at all. The only reason I can think of is that they must believe that gay people are more likely to be HIV positive, and this is simply ludicrous and bigoted.

I'm hating this point which is brought up over and over. The screening is fallable. Thats why they feel such a decision needs to be made. Whether you feel that the decision is justified is a totally different point

And the decision is unjustified by anything but homophobia. It is certain sex acts that are risky, not the sex of your partner.

If entire "high-risk groups" are going to be banned from giving blood, then we shouldn't be accepting any blood from black heterosexual women, as they - at the last statistics I saw - have the highest rates of infection. Of course, no one would ever suggest that they be banned from giving blood, but it is ok to block all homosexuals?

It would make infinitely more sense to tie the screening to the risky sex acts, rather than to the sexual orientation of the donor. That way those who engage in risky behaviors and are thus at higher risk, regardless of sexual orientation, will be kept out. The current system blocks homosexuals who practice safe sex with a monogamous partner (not at high risk for HIV) while allowing promiscuous men and women who have unprotected sex with many members of the opposite sex (at high risk for HIV).


I'm sure many homosexuals (and bisexuals for that matter) would want to give blood, and it would be very useful to the blood banks.

Indeed. I've known many homosexuals who would give blood, if they weren't banned from doing so. All are HIV- and most are in long-term relationships. Some have rare blood types that are always needed in the blood banks.

I understand, I'm simply lost as to why gay people are a risk group at all. The only reason I can think of is that they must believe that gay people are more likely to be HIV positive, and this is simply ludicrous and bigoted.

At one time, it was true. Without the risk of pregnancy, gay couples were much less likely to use condoms. In addition, a large proportion of gay men who were out of the closet were very promiscuous. After all, a complete lack of acceptance isn't really a big push towards long-term relationships. (And promiscuity was common among pretty much everyone who was unmarried - gay or straight - at the time)

However, this isn't true today. I have seen no reason to believe that gay men are any less likely to form long-term relationships than their heterosexual counterparts, nor have I seen any reason to believe that they are less likely to use protection.

It's no fun to be a second class citizen, because of my sexual orientation I'm forced to lie about it to medical professionals so that my insurance rates remain payable, I'm required to say I'm straight in order to give blood, and I'm forced to lie about a number of other things that I'd rather not have to. In order to be a normal citizen in this country, you're not allowed to be gay.

It's pretty much the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, and if they're considering "risk factors" (which they could easily apply to race or probably religion, if they're crafty enough) then we might as well start lining up for our separate drinking fountains and skull measurement.

It's stupidity. It's segregation.

At one time, it was true. Without the risk of pregnancy, gay couples were much less likely to use condoms. In addition, a large proportion of gay men who were out of the closet were very promiscuous. After all, a complete lack of acceptance isn't really a big push towards long-term relationships. (And promiscuity was common among pretty much everyone who was unmarried - gay or straight - at the time)
Indeed, which is why AIDS was first thought to be a disease only gay people could catch.

However, this isn't true today. I have seen no reason to believe that gay men are any less likely to form long-term relationships than their heterosexual counterparts, nor have I seen any reason to believe that they are less likely to use protection.

*agrees*

I have to go, love to stay and debate, but I'll end on this note: even if you could, would you? I doubt that, if granted, homosexuals would be flying out of their houses to the nearest blood blank in a bliss knowing that this unalienable right had been granted.

FDA, keep your shit together, brush aside silly minorities that get all offended when you actually have a backbone.

Are you even aware of what you're saying?

What you're saying is prejudiced on a level just so high that it's a miracle my ceiling doesn't shatter while reading that. It's disgusting, bigoted, appalling and frankly, such a belief is downright sick.

Actually...Sick is not the word. The sheer amount of contempt I have for such a belief simply cannot be expressed. I'm not exaggerating. I can't think of a word to use.

My fiance is barred from donating blood for life, because he lived in the UK and there is a possibility he was exposed to Mad Cow disease while there.

That seems somewhat excessive. I mean, it's not like you can't get Mad Cow in America, or Germany, or Sealand, or any other country. The beef industry is globalized.

Linky. (http://www.redcross.org/search/include/arcautosuggest.asp?docid=975047&sDBs=AllSite&results=10&links=GAI&imgflg=&sumflg=&option=showcontent)



Fine. Let's ban the blacks from donating blood too because blacks have a high prevalence of AIDS. *thinks.* Nah... only ban the ones who actually do have AIDS. We need all the HIV-negative blood we can get.



Dayton seems a smart enough guy, but did he really have to ASK if it was prudent? Of course it is! There's no HIV test in the world that won't pick up a virus that's been floating around for five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_immune_deficiency_syndrome#HIV_test


Try deferring them for six months, then. Jesus. No sense in permanently cutting off a source of blood when we're already low.



I repeat: Either ban other high-risk groups like blacks, or ban only those who actually test positive for AIDS. HIV-negative blood from a gay person is as good as HIV-negative blood from a straight person.



So the FDA's own study finds that a five-year deferral won't increase the HIV rate, and the Red Cross is too homophobic to accept a change for fear that gay blood might make it into the banks.



The FDA did. The ARC didn't.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_immune_deficiency_syndrome#Stigma



So, the ARC's position is based on a homophobic, uneducated, and conservative premise. Their position is clearly fallacious. They don't ask if you engaged in anal sex (the riskiest sexual activity), oral sex (among the safest) or used a condom (which significantly reduces disease transmission) with a member of the opposite sex. Hell, anal sex with a woman is probably riskier, simply because women are smaller and easier to injure. They just ask if a man had sex with another man. To the ARC, oral sex with a condom is as risky as barebacking, but straight sex is A-OK with them. Words fail me.

My fiance is barred from donating blood for life, because he lived in the UK and there is a possibility he was exposed to Mad Cow disease while there.

My fiance is barred from donating blood for life, because he lived in the UK and there is a possibility he was exposed to Mad Cow disease while there.

People keep using this as a comparison, but it really doesn't work. Anyone who lived in or traveled to the UK for a long enough time risked being exposed to Mad Cow, and anyone exposed to that risk is equally banned from giving.

On the other hand, being a gay man or even engaging in sex with another man does not automatically put you at a higher risk than your heterosexual counterparts for HIV infection. Engaging in unsafe sex, on the other hand, puts you at greater risk no matter what the sex of your partner is.

If you wanted to use this sort of restriction as an adequate comparison, the UK restriction would have to be more like, "Some people who like chocolate ice cream went to the UK, so we're going to ban all people who like chocolate ice cream and have ever eaten from giving, regardless of their travel habits. We're not going to worry about people who like and eat vanilla ice cream and traveled to the UK. They're not at risk."

Homophobia is not only a horrible misapropriation of the word it has alose become a hate term no less derogitrory than Wop, fag or ******. I resent your use of the term as much as any other hate word.

Don't expect us to be tolerant towards the intolerant.
Thus the reason those of your ideological ilk are indeed intolerant as well, and rightfully seen as such by everyone else. The idea that everyone must be tolerant, respectful, and accepting of your personal views. But all other opposing or undesirable views MUST be ignored, scorned, condemned, rejected, attacked and banned.

Yes, because a person defending the disqualification of homosexuals who have had sex with other men from giving blood is clearly equal to the man who presided over the mass murder of 12 million people and launched the most destructive war in human history.:rolleyes:


try the crusades my dear, they are still going on:
be gay
be Pagan,
be left-handed.
or
female
or of African decent
or Native American
or a man who is a rape victim, by another man.
...
in the us, there are straight camps
10 commandments engravings are potentialy allowed at schools
old/new testament statement about some uninformed thought that being left handed is bad. :confused:

multi.generational.genocide.laughed.at.over.morning.coffee.
fuck, i die, the USVA (US Veterans Ass.) wont give a Pentacle on my headstone.

WHAT 1st. Ammendment?
WHAT life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?

ill shut up now.
Rafe
OOC

I wasn't really talking about life span, which is important, don't get me wrong. What I was more concerned about was that you couldn't have sex, ever, if you got HIV. I honestly wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I did, because even though there is protection, it could have gotten messed up or something... So no sex, ever, would suck, making HIV bad to have, even if you get to exist for a couple of years.

Well, my friend, that's why condoms were invented. So those with STD's can get their rocks off until they're too sick to make (or take) another thrust.

Then again, I personally have no desire to contract AIDS, unlike the bug chasers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing_and_giftgiving), who it MUST be emphasized are a very small minority of gay men who have been sucked into the propaganda machine that gays are more likely than straights who engage in the same activities to get HIV. I believe that every time you have sex with someone whose sexual history you don't know, you should use a condom.

Rafe: What's this about straight camps?? *draws blank*