Gay Blood is Good Blood

[Venatoris]

Is this really an issue?

You take blood from an individual. Test the blood. If it's safe than it goes in a bank. If not than properly dispose of it. End of the issue.

That there are ridiculous protocols based on suppositions just shows that people are too foolish to act intelligently.

Agreed, this would also eliminate the possibility of getting contaminated blood from straight people. "What? Straight people can have diseases too?".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is this really an issue?

You take blood from an individual. Test the blood. If it's safe than it goes in a bank. If not than properly dispose of it. End of the issue.

That there are ridiculous protocols based on suppositions just shows that people are too foolish to act intelligently.

I could care less if the blood that was transfused into me when I had an emergency splenectomy bleeding out into my abdomen came from a gay man or not. As long as it was tested safe is all that matters. I was more concerned if the surgeon left an instrument inside of me.

And here's another argument. Why is the correct spelling a splenectomy when the organ is spelled spleen! So much for Harvard medicine!

Agreed, this would also eliminate the possibility of getting contaminated blood from straight people. "What? Straight people can have diseases too?".

I'm afraid you are both uninformed about the facts surrounding this issue. As I explained in post #49:

nfortunately it is not possible to know with 100% certainty whether every blood donor is free of blood-borne disease with current technology, and it is also not possible to ensure with 100% confidence that blood which tests positive for a disease is properly disposed of, instead of being accidentally passed on to a blood recipient. With millions of blood transfusions happening each year, there very little margin for error. Even a very tiny error rate will cause a few people to get infections each year. That is why people in high-risk groups are deferred from donating blood.

For example, by deferring high-risk groups, assuming everyone complies, we screen out more than 99% of all HIV cases (at least in the male population) before doing any blood testing at all. Even with these seemingly stringent safety measures in place, I emphasize again that there have been 9 confirmed cases of people getting HIV (not to mention other diseases) from blood transfusions in the U.S. since circa 1992.
​

Also please see post #41.

 

[BassDeist]

I remember reading something about how anal intercourse (one of the more common forms of sexual contact between homosexual males, although not the only one) can cause micro-fissures in the anal lining, leaving the body and the blood at risk of infection, even where the person shows no ill-effects (such as bleeding).

Although the debate on that continues, and there's an argument that blood safety and testing means that there really should be no problem.

 

[Gunfingers]

Then you should probably read the post RIGHT before yours, where it's explained that blood safety and testing do not completely fix the problem.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Then you should probably read the post RIGHT before yours, where it's explained that blood safety and testing do not completely fix the problem.

Which is why some groups are designated at risk for HIV/AIDS.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

BBC show on the subject from April, 2011: YouTube - ‪CampaignTB's Channel‬‏

 

[Pegg]

Why shouldn't gay people be able to give blood? What about being gay suddenly makes our blood bad? Do the people in the government think that homosexuality can pass through blood or something? LOL

not homosexuality, but infectious diseases certainly do. The homosexual community is a high risk for such infections. Dont take it personally.

 

[Vendetta]

Looking at statistics and going by that logic, the red cross shouldn't be accepting blood from black and hispanic people. Can you imagine the **** storm if they put that policy into action?

Silly...which blacks are you referring to? Africans? Or African Americans? And what about hispanics? Are you referrig to heterosexual or homosexual African Americans?

 

[Vendetta]

Sorry to say but Gay males are certainly a high risk group of contracting sexually transmitted disease ergo, HIV/AIDS

 

[Vendetta]

I remember reading something about how anal intercourse (one of the more common forms of sexual contact between homosexual males, although not the only one) can cause micro-fissures in the anal lining, leaving the body and the blood at risk of infection, even where the person shows no ill-effects (such as bleeding).

Although the debate on that continues, and there's an argument that blood safety and testing means that there really should be no problem.

You're absolutely correct. Anal sex does create micro fissures in the rectal area and if not protected, most certainly the risk is much greater.

 

[Oneatatime]

Why shouldn't gay people be able to give blood? What about being gay suddenly makes our blood bad? Do the people in the government think that homosexuality can pass through blood or something? LOL

It's simple discrimination because regardless of the sexual orientation of the donar the blood would be tested to ensure it didn't contain anything dangerous. Amazingly *gasp* heterosexuals can have carry sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV as well as homosexuals.

I can't imagine that a blood supplier would have much luck in court if it said the reason it didn't test a infected donars blood was because they weren't homosexual.

 

[Gunfingers]

^Above is an example of why I was so glad this discussion died. That very same question was asked and answered at least three times.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

^Above is an example of why I was so glad this discussion died. That very same question was asked and answered at least three times.

I think the above post by Oneatatime demonstrates why it is so important that this discussion does not die. There is an enormous amount of ignorance and misunderstanding on this subject. It's important that we address this, because someday, there WILL be another new virus for which there is no test, just as there was no test for HIV and Hep C when they emerged. Government agencies are reviewing their blood donation policies, partly due to pressure from gay rights groups which are essentially accusing doctors and scientists of basing policy on bigotry. Let's hope they change the policies based on sound medicine, not on political pressure. Because when the next new virus emerges, a few people might get infected by blood transfusions, or many thousands of people might get infected, as happened in the case of HIV and years later, a second time in the case of Hep. C. The likelihood of history repeating itself will depend on the policies that we have in place at the time.

Oneatatime, I understand your concern. However, the fact is that all blood is indeed tested but with millions of blood transfusions occurring each year, even a tiny failure rate in the testing/processing of infected blood will result in people getting HIV and other diseases from blood transfusions. Therefore, in addition to testing every bag of blood donated, people are screened based on risk factors. It is a fact that MSM (men who have sex with men) have the highest risk. IV drug users, and anyone who has had sex with a hemophiliac is also at high risk. This does not mean that all these people are diseased. In fact, very, very few of them actually have any disease. But, if you exclude all the people in these groups, you have a good chance of avoiding those "one-in-a-million" mistakes that occur when testing fails. That's the reason for the "discriminatory" blood donation policies.

In other words, the blood donation policy is not what is unfair. It is the reality of blood-born infections that is unfair. It may be unfair, but it is reality and we can't change it. Better education on the facts and risk factors involved may change this reality one day and reduce the prevalence of infections in the MSM community. If we really care about the MSM community then we will try to help them by facing the tragic and unfair reality instead of pretending that "heterosexuals are just as likely" etc.

 

[Pegg]

It's simple discrimination because regardless of the sexual orientation of the donar the blood would be tested to ensure it didn't contain anything dangerous. Amazingly *gasp* heterosexuals can have carry sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV as well as homosexuals.

I can't imagine that a blood supplier would have much luck in court if it said the reason it didn't test a infected donars blood was because they weren't homosexual.

i am appalled to say that blood donations are not tested for all possible diseases and infections.

here it is from the australian red cross blood donation website:
What is my blood tested for?
After donation, all blood is tested at every donation for blood type, the presence of red cell antibodies and for the following infections: HIV1 & 2, hepatitis B & C, HTLV I & II and syphilis.