The gay rights community is wrong about blood donations (again)

[enchanted_one1975]

I only asked questions......yeah, that is easy. But if we groundskeepers were prone to some blood borne infection which posed
excessive risk to others, then I'd have no qualms about our exclusion. My self esteem is not tied to others' desire for my blood.
I know many people who cannot give blood (for many reasons). It doesn't bother them either. Perhaps some people should
not strive so hard to see themselves as victims.

Btw, I don't know enuf about blood mongering to take a position on whom to exclude. Too many people seem ready to take a
stand without understanding the issue.

Ahh I was just making a funny when I dragged groundskeepers into it. The thing that bugs most of us queer folks though, is that fact that statistically we are not the most at-risk group for getting HIV/AIDS. Nowhere in the process do they ask you how many times you have had unprotected sex with someone other that your spouse since 1977. They don't ask if you have ever had a condom break during sex. They don't ask if you are someone's "blood brother" or "blood sister." They single out homosexual activity like HIV/AIDS is running wild among us. That is just not the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahh I was just making a funny when I dragged groundskeepers into it. The thing that bugs most of us queer folks though, is that fact that statistically we are not the most at-risk group for getting HIV/AIDS. Nowhere in the process do they ask you how many times you have had unprotected sex with someone other that your spouse since 1977. They don't ask if you have ever had a condom break during sex. They don't ask if you are someone's "blood brother" or "blood sister." They single out homosexual activity like HIV/AIDS is running wild among us. That is just not the case.

Your points reinforce the need for answers to my questions.

We groundskeepers take no offense at your hypothetical suggestion.....at least no
more offense than normal. We're angry about everything. (But we're fair that way.)

 

[Gunfingers]

They single out homosexual activity like HIV/AIDS is running wild among us. That is just not the case.

It kinda is. The link posted earlier put it at 800 times more common than other donors. It's getting better, of course, because now people understand more about AIDS and how it spreads. If these trends continue then AIDS will no longer have the medical association it does today and the need to defer homosexuals from donating will no longer exist.

 

[fallingblood]

Ahh I was just making a funny when I dragged groundskeepers into it. The thing that bugs most of us queer folks though, is that fact that statistically we are not the most at-risk group for getting HIV/AIDS. Nowhere in the process do they ask you how many times you have had unprotected sex with someone other that your spouse since 1977. They don't ask if you have ever had a condom break during sex. They don't ask if you are someone's "blood brother" or "blood sister." They single out homosexual activity like HIV/AIDS is running wild among us. That is just not the case.

Those questions wouldn't necessarily be the best anyway as there is no way to make sure that the person is being truthful.

I for one can not donate blood for a few years because of medical conditions that I previously had. Most likely, it will end up being that I cannot donate blood for the rest of my life. I don't feel discriminated against because of my medical condition. I would like to donate blood, but I understand why I can't, and being someone who has received multiple transfusions, I am happy that precautions are being taken.

 

[Darkness]

What is a human life worth? If they didn't discriminate then they could get more people to donate, which would potentially lower the cost of a pint of blood to the end recipient. (Just because you donated it does not mean the one in need gets it for free.) If the cost of the actual blood was lowered then that would mean more money would be available for more accurate testing.

Do they deny blood from lesbians or is it only gay men?

 

[DallasApple]

Do they deny blood from lesbians or is it only gay men?

From what I understand only gay men..In fact lesbiens seem to be in one of the lowest catergories (risk factor wise) to be infected with HIV..

Love

Dallas

 

[dust1n]

Do they deny blood from lesbians or is it only gay men?

Only gay men, if I am not mistaken.

EDIT: Oh, DA got to it first. Well, at least, I know I was not mistaken.

 

[Darkness]

From what I understand only gay men..In fact lesbiens seem to be in one of the lowest catergories (risk factor wise) to be infected with HIV..

Love

Dallas

Which is why the fundamentalist arguement that homosexual sex is dangerous/damaging, means that anything besides lesbian sex is immoral. :yes:

 

[DallasApple]

Also another thing..to my understanding they do test ..I believe "double" for HIV ..thats one of the problems or maybe a reason(Im guessing) ..because the liklihood above "norm" that the blood will have to be drawn and tested and disposed of its a matter of saving money..

Love

Dallas

 

[dust1n]

I always found something profoundly uncomfortable with donating blood. The fact that this private company thrives on the guilt of others. I spend an hour answering random survey questions and confirming the purity of my blood, it is extracted and I get a sticker, a banana nut muffin, and a bottle of orange juice. The company on the other hand sells the blood to hospitals, which then charges individual patients. I would much rather just donate my blood directly to the hospital or the patient so that the costs do not carry.. either that or I should get like 10 bucks for donating in the first place.

 

[dust1n]

Which is why the fundamentalist arguement that homosexual sex is dangerous/damaging, means that anything besides lesbian sex is immoral. :yes:

I can't argue that. The risks of getting blood from men or from women who have had intercourse with men is just too dangerous because the company is unable to meet the safety requirements of making sure the blood is good.

 

[DallasApple]

Which is why the fundamentalist arguement that homosexual sex is dangerous/damaging, means that anything besides lesbian sex is immoral. :yes:

I agree..but this is about "calculated risk factors" and "costs" and the safety of our blood supply..Not moral or immoral sexual practices..

I mean lets be honest here..If you had a virgin.. known non intrevenious drug user (no other information) offering you blood..

Or a heterosexual sexually active (male or female) known non intrevenious drug user offering you blood..

Who would you pick ..?

On a gamble and if this makes me a bigot(I dont care) I would choose the virgin.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I always found something profoundly uncomfortable with donating blood. The fact that this private company thrives on the guilt of others. I spend an hour answering random survey questions and confirming the purity of my blood, it is extracted and I get a sticker, a banana nut muffin, and a bottle of orange juice. The company on the other hand sells the blood to hospitals, which then charges individual patients. I would much rather just donate my blood directly to the hospital or the patient so that the costs do not carry.. either that or I should get like 10 bucks for donating in the first place.

If you are a male?..(that eats meat especially)..its actually good for you to donate blood like every six months..

Its one factor that can reduce your chance of heart attack..(over the long haul)..has to do with iron content in the blood ...

Its one factor in why women live longer..they bleed ..

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, the argument then is that proper screening of blood donors - read gay men - creates more safe blood for patients that need it. In this argument, gay people don't feel discriminated against, and there is more safe blood.

I take on board what you are saying, there have been tragic cases in the past where proper precautions have not been put in place, but I think in this day and age we should be looking at more inclusive precautions than exclusive precautions.

The process of screening donated blood is by its very nature an exclusive process, not an inclusive one. If you make it an inclusive process then you aren't screening the blood and you are increasing the risk.

My fiancee cannot donate blood. Why? In her personal case, there is very little risk of blood borne disease because I am repeatedly tested for HIV and Hepatitis every 6 months and we are in a monogamous relationship. However, she does have relations with a hemophiliac (me) and statistically, that puts her into a high-risk group. Therefore, she is screened.

Is this unfair? No. It's a statistical test designed to mitigate the very real and ever-present risk of transmitting blood-borne disease. My fiancee does not have the right to donate blood. No one has the right to donate blood. Only the people receiving blood donations have rights.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

It kinda is. The link posted earlier put it at 800 times more common than other donors. It's getting better, of course, because now people understand more about AIDS and how it spreads. If these trends continue then AIDS will no longer have the medical association it does today and the need to defer homosexuals from donating will no longer exist.

Source? Last time I heard, the vast majority of males engages in homosexual activity were being more careful. Many of us do not engage in casual anal sex. If such a thing is taking place you can almost bet a condom is being used. Last time I heard, the largest group of those catching HIV/AIDS was high school kids because they have sex without thinking about the consequences.

Those questions wouldn't necessarily be the best anyway as there is no way to make sure that the person is being truthful.

And there is no way to know if I am being truthful about my homosexual experiences from the time I was 2 until now.

I always found something profoundly uncomfortable with donating blood. The fact that this private company thrives on the guilt of others. I spend an hour answering random survey questions and confirming the purity of my blood, it is extracted and I get a sticker, a banana nut muffin, and a bottle of orange juice. The company on the other hand sells the blood to hospitals, which then charges individual patients. I would much rather just donate my blood directly to the hospital or the patient so that the costs do not carry.. either that or I should get like 10 bucks for donating in the first place.

They do pay if you donate blood plasma rather than whole blood. Since the red cells are returned to you you can also donate as often as twice per week. Your weight determines how much they can take from you in a sitting. I used to donate when I lived in Tucson. The "fee" ranged from $20 - $22 depending on your weight. They do refuse based on the same criteria as donating blood though, as in you cannot donate for the same reasons, such as having homosexual man sex since 1977. I lied to them too. I needed the money.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The actual rate of HIV infection among gay men is very high -- about 44 times the rate of HIV infection among the general population of the United States -- but I think it's disingenuous to imply that gay men with HIV would donate blood at a rate 800 times the rate of the general population.

I don't think that's what I said.... I was basically quoting the FDA ( Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers ):

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors. ​

Note that this does not say "gay men", but "men who have had sex with men since 1977". I'm not sure if that matters, I'm just trying to be precise.

Also, I'm curious: In view of the fact that African-Americans are far more likely to have HIV than Caucasians, do you favor a ban on blood donation by African-Americans?

I think the relevant question, whether we are talking about MSM or African-Americans or any other group, is purely a medical/policy question. The question is this: how much would we reduce the risk of blood borne disease by such a policy, and would this outweigh the cost of reduced blood supply? I think this question should be addressed by our best experts based on the soundest scientific data. I don't think blacks, or gays, or whites, or myself or my fiancee have a right to donate blood and I think it would be a serious misunderstanding and a mistake for black advocacy groups to take this up as a civil rights issue.

For the record, if won't bother me if they never lift the ban. My sense of alienation from American society is very nearly complete, and I wouldn't donate blood even if the ban were lifted, although I don't have HIV and have never had any other sexually-transmitted disease.

Smoke, you know how strongly I support equality for the LGBT community. It's terrible the way our society has alienated LGBT people. However, in this *one particular* instance, out of many dozens, I think the alienation is misplaced. This time, you're mistaken. Lots of people get screened from donating blood even though they KNOW they don't have any disease. Don't take it personally. It's just a statistical safety precaution. The policy HAPPENS to be a very convenient fact for the bigots who will try to say AIDS is a "gay curse" or something .... nevertheless, we can't let our distaste for bigots get in the way of sober, sound medical policy. IMO

 

[DallasApple]

The process of screening donated blood is by its very nature an exclusive process, not an inclusive one. If you make it an inclusive process then you aren't screening the blood and you are increasing the risk.

My fiancee cannot donate blood. Why? In her personal case, there is very little risk of blood borne disease because I am repeatedly tested for HIV and Hepatitis every 6 months and we are in a monogamous relationship. However, she does have relations with a hemophiliac (me) and statistically, that puts her into a high-risk group. Therefore, she is screened.

Is this unfair? No. It's a statistical test designed to mitigate the very real and ever-present risk of transmitting blood-borne disease. My fiancee does not have the right to donate blood. No one has the right to donate blood. Only the people receiving blood donations have rights.

I agree..

Love

Dallas

 

[Kathryn]

What gets me about the ban is one automatically must assume gay men are likely to have HIV. I don't have HIV or any other STD. I am very careful about who I go with, and am not promiscious.

Guess what - I used to donate blood regularly. Now I am banned for life from donating blood, which greatly dissappoints me because I derived a great sense of personal worth by my regular blood and plasma donations.

I lived in Europe in the 1990s, during the mad cow disease epidemic in England. Because of the possibility of exposure to that disease, I can never give blood again. This - even though I certainly do not have mad cow disease, and will nearly certainly never be stricken with it.

My husband worked in Africa for ten years. He never had sex with any Africans and never has used intravenous drugs. However, because he lived there, he is now also permanently banned from donating blood.

We're both very dissappointed by this. But - are we being discriminated against because of our life choices? Or is the medical community simply safeguarding the blood supply?

I go with answer B on this one.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What gets me about the ban is one automatically must assume gay men are likely to have HIV. I don't have HIV or any other STD. I am very careful about who I go with, and am not promiscious.

It's not about you personally, Yosef. It's about statistical screening tests which mitigate the risk to people receiving blood transfusions. Any such screening procedure will no doubt screen lots of people who have no disease at all along with a few people who have diseases. This policy doesn't mean you have an STD because you are gay, although I understand and sympathize with the fact that the bigots may use this as an *excuse* to imply such a thing.

 

[DallasApple]

Source? Last time I heard, the vast majority of males engages in homosexual activity were being more careful. Many of us do not engage in casual anal sex. If such a thing is taking place you can almost bet a condom is being used. Last time I heard, the largest group of those catching HIV/AIDS was high school kids because they have sex without thinking about the consequences.

And there is no way to know if I am being truthful about my homosexual experiences from the time I was 2 until now.

They do pay if you donate blood plasma rather than whole blood. Since the red cells are returned to you you can also donate as often as twice per week. Your weight determines how much they can take from you in a sitting. I used to donate when I lived in Tucson. The "fee" ranged from $20 - $22 depending on your weight. They do refuse based on the same criteria as donating blood though, as in you cannot donate for the same reasons, such as having homosexual man sex since 1977. I lied to them too. I needed the money.

High school kids are the largest group catching HIV /aids?

Love

Dallas