Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Gays Be Allowed To Donate Blood?
Acts of the Apostasy ^ | 9/12/11

Posted on 09/13/2011 6:07:36 AM PDT by markomalley

It's an issue that has been discussed - and continues to be discussed.

Last Friday, the UK decided to lift the ban on prohibiting gays from donating blood.

From Times Of India: UK Lifts Ban, Says Gays Can Donate Blood

LONDON: Britain said Thursday it was lifting a ban on gay men giving blood providing they have had not had sexual intercourse within a year.

A lifetime ban on blood donation by gay men was introduced in Britain in the 1980s as a response to the spread of AIDS and HIV.

But a review by a panel of leading experts and patient groups found it could no longer support their exclusion. However, gay men who have had anal or oral sex the past 12 months will still be barred from donating blood, the department of health said.

But then, just four days later, in what could be considered Tragic Irony, there's this from the Daily Mail Online:

Medics Infect 23 Children With HIV After Giving Them Contaminated Blood Transfusions In India

Twenty-three children suffering from a rare genetic disorder have been infected with HIV after receiving tainted blood in western India, it emerged today.

All the children had received free transfusions at a government-run hospital in the Junagadh district of Gujarat state between January and August.

The youngsters, who are all from poor families, all suffer from thalassemia, a genetic disorder that requires regular transfusions.

Thalassemia is an inherited blood disorder that causes the body to not produce the correct globulin protein, creating unusable blood and resulting in anaemia.

State government spokesman Jai Narayan Vyas said a team of doctors has been sent to investigate.

How very sad. Tragic. Children and their poor families suffering with one blood disorder now have to deal with a second disease. The source of the infected blood has yet to be determined, but it's more than likely that it came from an HIV-positive donor. It could have come from anybody - perhaps the donor was a homosexual man. Maybe not, but the chances are good. Perhaps better than good.

Bottom line - I think the UK's policy change is terrible. And there are groups in the US clamoring for the same change. Maybe instead of relying on the gays' word that they've kept their privates out of the intestines of another man for at least a year, why not just test their blood prior to donating? In fact, why not do that for everybody? You know, for the children? It's not like the gays will die from being prohibited to donate, will they? Unlike an unwitting patient?


TOPICS: Government; Society
KEYWORDS: aids; blood; bloodsupply; formerlygreatbritain; hiv; homonaziagenda; homonazis; homonazism; homopsychoagenda; homosexualagenda; homosexualism; oncegreatbritain; taintedblood; uk

1 posted on 09/13/2011 6:07:38 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yet another example of how political correctness is lethal. People will die receiving HIV infected blood, to be sure.


2 posted on 09/13/2011 6:10:36 AM PDT by ransacked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Sure! As long as the blood is kept segregated from the rest of the blood supply and is only used for transfusions to other gays.


3 posted on 09/13/2011 6:12:08 AM PDT by Ronin (Obamanation has replaced Bizarroworld as the most twisted place in the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

What a stupid question.


4 posted on 09/13/2011 6:12:13 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Only when the doctors and nurses involved in the transfusion are willing to inject themselves with the same blood

I see this as becoming a big problem in the military
and our people being sacrificed on the altar of PC


5 posted on 09/13/2011 6:13:36 AM PDT by silverleaf (Common sense is not so common - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I think cheerful, carefree people should be allowed to donate blood, sure.

As for disease-riddled, sexually-disoriented, sodomizing perverts...fine, let’em donate. Just be sure to dump their poisoned blood in the toilet, lest it infect the rest of us with a terminal illness.


6 posted on 09/13/2011 6:14:28 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Someone should ask Arthur Ashe how he feels about Homosexual men donating blood. Oh? He’s dead? From HIV contaminated blood? What a shame...


7 posted on 09/13/2011 6:16:35 AM PDT by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Only if you want to give aids to others.

There is a cure for homosexuals, and God has told us why homosexuals are homosexuals.
Now God is allowing His warnings to be fulfilled.


8 posted on 09/13/2011 6:16:42 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Answer: NO.

FWIW, ROP muzzies in UK and US have started their own blood banks since the common blood supply is donated mostly from pigeating infidels and (gasp) from dem JOOOOOOZ!

“homosexuality sux.”


9 posted on 09/13/2011 6:17:14 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransacked

I wonder if, given a choice, a gay man (who knew that he was HIV negative) would volunteer to accept a transfusion from another gay man (status unknown) or if he would prefer his donor to be a happily married and monogamous Christian woman.

I bet his “gay rights” solidarity button would go out the window so fast it would break the sound barrier.


10 posted on 09/13/2011 6:18:22 AM PDT by Ronin (Obamanation has replaced Bizarroworld as the most twisted place in the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Anybody who have lifestyles that could put another person at risk, when they give blood, should not be allowed to give blood.

The fact is that, as far as I know, you could have HIV for at least a month without detection. Consequently, that person can put others at and not know it.


11 posted on 09/13/2011 6:18:36 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Should Gays Homosexuals Be Allowed To Donate Blood?

Of course not. Only an idiot would accept blood from a homosexual.

12 posted on 09/13/2011 6:19:47 AM PDT by laweeks (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Nobody should be allowed to donate blood who is infected with anything. Hell I tested positive for TB years ago. Went though treatment successfully but can no longer donate.


13 posted on 09/13/2011 6:22:41 AM PDT by tal hajus ("Thank you sir. May I have another?" GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Of course. We wouldn’t want to excluded homosexual’s because that would make them feel bad. /s


14 posted on 09/13/2011 6:22:57 AM PDT by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Nothing good can come from any of this.


15 posted on 09/13/2011 6:25:09 AM PDT by novascotianative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Who determines and how is it determined whether someone is really a homosexual or not?


16 posted on 09/13/2011 6:26:57 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Should IV drug users be allowed to donate blood? Seems just as valid a question. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people out there who would not see that the obvious answer is the same for both groups.


17 posted on 09/13/2011 6:28:42 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
Only an idiot would accept blood from a homosexual.

Their blood is an abomination. It's defiled with all kinds of infections and diseases. It's like donating sewer sludge.

18 posted on 09/13/2011 6:30:30 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
No

Hell NO

< /choir preaching >

19 posted on 09/13/2011 6:32:33 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
My knee-jerk reaction was "This is just silly - HIV contaminated blood is screened out by testing". Amazing what a little research turns up.

HIV antibody tests fail to identify HIV-infected blood donated by HIV-infected persons who have not yet seroconverted. Exclusion of donors is voluntary. Interviews with HIV antibody-positive donors reveal that most recognize their risk but fail to exclude themselves.(27) As a result, laboratory efforts to eliminate HIV-infected donors have continued and testing has improved. Currently, HIV antibody tests detect both HIV-1 and HIV-2 and detect antibody approximately 22 days (the "window period") after the viremic phase of HIV infection begins. Antigen testing for p24, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996, shortened the window period to approximately 16 days. The nucleic acid amplification test (NAT), which detects HIV-1 RNA in minipools (16-24 donation samples/pool), was introduced in the United States in 1999 and further reduces the window period of potential HIV transmission to 11 days.(25,26) As of early 2003, three transfusion recipients are known to have become HIV infected by transfusion of HIV antibody-negative, p24 antigen-negative, and HIV NAT-negative blood from two different blood donors (among 25 million donations)

Source

20 posted on 09/13/2011 6:39:14 AM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thommas

Kimberly Bergalis was the 1st


21 posted on 09/13/2011 6:39:41 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Well sure they should be able to donate blood. There should be a gay blood bank ... run by gays ... just for gays. I’m sure gays would have no problem accepting donated blood from fellow gays ... or would they?


22 posted on 09/13/2011 6:42:40 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is part of the never ending campaign to sell the myth that AIDS is not primarily spread by gay men. An equal opportunity disease, as it were.

According to the CDC figures a few years ago when I did some research to win an argument with a liberal moron reporter at the Tampa Tribune, if you factor out drug use, women who have had sex with gay or bi men (and those women’s partners) and contaminated blood (from guess who?), the disease is almost completely limited to men having sex with men.

Not rocket science. The trace back to the source will always eventually lead to gay sex.

The advocates of doing this with the blood supply are nothing less than murderers.


23 posted on 09/13/2011 7:15:27 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ( If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: t1b8zs
Kimberly Bergalis was the 1st

Didn't she get it from her dentist?

24 posted on 09/13/2011 7:23:36 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Malsua

Yes,I was refering to person to person contamination other than intercourse(poorley sterilized hand piece)


25 posted on 09/13/2011 7:43:17 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; All
Conflating what happened in India with what happens in the UK is silly. Standards and testing are likely quite different.

Testing is imperfect so policy is all about managing risks to the blood supply. If there's a high risk population it's bad policy to bring them into the pool of donors just because it'd make them feel good.

Is the blood supply so strained the risk level is outweighed by a need to tap into an additional, minuscule, fraction of population? I'd hope not!

26 posted on 09/13/2011 7:53:22 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Will racist demagogue Andre Carson be censured by the House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I think all happy people should be allowed to give blood. But not homosexuals.


27 posted on 09/13/2011 8:18:46 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; BabaOreally; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

They don't want AIDS to be a "gay disease". They want to share the misery, it's that simple.

28 posted on 09/13/2011 10:27:40 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

HELL NO THEY SHOULD NOT, they have much more diseases than a normal person as it is


29 posted on 09/13/2011 2:12:55 PM PDT by manc (Hannity admitted he is socially liberal, another phony conservative,1man +1 woman=marriage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc
they have much more diseases than a normal person

If they were to be properly placed in the high risk pool, your health insurance rates would drop like a rock.

30 posted on 09/13/2011 2:16:00 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Simple: Scientists say NO, common sense says NO, so the answer is NO! Period.


31 posted on 09/13/2011 2:21:03 PM PDT by ToxicMich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

No.

It will take a few lives to be lost for the supporters of lifting the ban to realize they are wrong. Sad.


32 posted on 09/13/2011 4:18:51 PM PDT by gingerales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I took care of a very nice man dying from HIV.

Wife, 3 kids.

Got 4 units of blood during open heart surgery and was infected.

Life time ban is the only moral choice...


33 posted on 09/13/2011 10:14:34 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
...And there are groups in the US clamoring for the same change. Maybe instead of relying on the gays' word that they've kept their privates out of the intestines of another man for at least a year, why not just test their blood prior to donating? In fact, why not do that for everybody? I don't know what current practice in the US is, but in Britain all donated blood is tested for the presence of a whole range of illnesses - including AIDS and Hepatitis. And of course, its always tested for compatability before being given to any patient.

It would be impractical to test blood prior to donating. It takes a few days for all the tests to be done, by which time the tests might very well be obsolete.

34 posted on 09/14/2011 12:40:07 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Oh that’s easy. They are born that way. There are genetic tests that can show whether someone is homosexual /s


35 posted on 09/14/2011 12:43:03 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It is amazing how AIDS spread throughout the world in about 10 years.


36 posted on 09/14/2011 8:13:58 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson