Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross

Concord Monitor, LA Times ^ | 7/11/05 | Steve Bodzin

[Dane]

Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross

By STEVEN BODZIN Los Angeles Times July 11. 2005 8:06AM

WASHINGTON - For more than a decade, gay rights advocates have grumbled about a federal policy that forbids blood donation by men who have had sex with men.

They say that the policy, originally intended to keep HIV-positive blood from entering the nation's blood supply, implies gay men are inherently sick and that it prevents healthy people from donating.

Occasional protests and talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees blood banks, have brought no change.

Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country.

Unlike America's Blood Centers, which represents the non-Red Cross blood banks that collect most of the nation's blood, the Red Cross publicly supports the policy. Activists say that if they can get the Red Cross to change its stance, the FDA will follow.

While many gay rights advocates have treated the blood ban as a low priority, college groups have begun to take on the issue. They argue that, although safe blood supplies are essential, this particular policy is outdated, ineffective and homophobic.

[commonasdirt]

"Maybe that is their strategic goal "

Could well be doc30. After all they failed miserably in their attempt to convince us that AID's would sweep through the hetero community.

[Bon mots]

The inodctrinated marxists are not concerned about keeping the blood supply safe.

Actually, they want to spread AIDS among the population of non-gay men. If cute suburban children are dying from AIDS, then they think that we will drastically mobilize resources to cure this otherwise homosexual disease.

AIDS queers want to infect our children, not just indoctrinate them.

[Dane]

Allowing gays to openly donate blood would skew the odds somewhat, but I suspect that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Homosexuals also have much higher incidences of gongherrea and syphilis.

It's just a fact that their "lifestyle"(deathstyle) is much unhealthier and that their blood is going to be filled with many more pathogens, than a heterosexual male or female.

[pointsal]

Stupid idea!

Now, let's get these morons registered on a Federal list

AND have them give blood to each other.

Four or five years and viola the epidemic is under control....'cause the carriers will be room temperature!

[gridlock]

Allowing gays to openly donate blood would skew the odds somewhat, but I suspect that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Why on Earth would you suspect that? That's about the silliest thing I have ever heard!

If you can screen out a deadly disease, why not screen it out? Blood banks are dependent on donations, so they are always promoting donations, but I don't think anybody is dying from a lack of blood in the blood banks. However, if AIDS is introduced into the blood supply, a lot of people will die.

I don't wish to stigmitize anybody, but public health is important. I think confidential opt outs are the way to go. If somebody with risk factors wants to donate blood, that's fine. But nobody has the right to put their blood into somebody else's body, particularly if it has an increased risk of bearing a deadly disease.

[gridlock]

Many people with Aids have sex without informing their partner . Is there a difference between this and giving blood?

I think the difference between someone who intentionally transmits AIDS through unprotected sex and someone tho donates infected blood is the difference between the person who kills his lover and the Texas University Tower sniper. Sure there are people who kill indiscriminately, but they are rare. It is far more common for people to kill those they know. And it is the extremely rare individual who wants to kill completely randomly and anonymously, without really knowing if he kills or not. I am sure such people exist, but there can not many of them.

Lots of people who are having promiscuous sex have self-hate issues. These people can be dangerous to themselves and those around them. But nobody really gets off on blood donations, at least not in my experience.

[yukong]

well, next thing you know, all IV drug users who share dirty needles will be demanding that they be able to give blood. Not allowing them to give blood is addictophobic, and that is wrong. And them people with hepatitis C will be demanding to be allowed to donate blood. To do otherwise will be hepatitophobic. And that is just wrong. What the heck, lets just drop all screening and let anyone, regardless of their health give blood. Then we will have all the blood we will need. Because after a few short years, so many will die, that the demand for blood products will go down. Or, more likely, because no one will have faith in the blood supply, no one will allow themselves to be given blood products, and thus we will have an ample supply. Yeah, that's the answer.

[reformedliberal]

I had surgery in 1981. In (IIRC) 1987 or so, the hospital I was in in La Crosse, WI, publicly requested everyone who had received blood there within the past 6-7 years to call in, as they had a rash of infections, mostly HIV, in transfusees.

I will never forget the feeling when I heard that. I called the hospital and gave my date of surgery. There was a longish pause and the RN said:"Yes, you may be at risk". She pulled my records and then told me that the lot I had received was ok. Again, the relief was indescribable.

Infinitesimal risk or not, the blood supply has in the past been compromised by politics (Clinton/prison donations) and probably more often than we know. It isn't always possible to give your own blood. An emergency or an accident, especially one away from home, cannot be planned for.

I have relatives and friends who are med staff and who have been exposed through their work. They go thru testing and live with dread until they are cleared. They comfort themselves with the fact of antiviral drug treatment before they know for sure. How much less of a risk is one small needle prick, or one splash from a patient as opposed to an entire unit or more?

I have given blood and plasma (I am AB+). I think I will make more plasma donations. It takes a relatively long time and is exhausting, but at least I know I am not infected with anything and the plasma is in high demand.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

PING to you, LJ

"...and they received on themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27b

If I may be so bold as to ask this important question:

It is obvious that a majority on this thread believe that the sodomites are statistically more likely to be carriers of deadly diseases, correct?

Then why on earth are we not calling for a quarrantine?

Seriously, if this were any other group, the public would be in outrage. Remember the dastardly meningitis scare or e-coli pandemonium of a few years ago? The public was flipping out, tripping over themselves to secure the possible carriers of those diseases. What happens each time there's an outbreak of Mad Cow? Panic. Boycotts. Public health warnings, etc.

Yet, despite the fact that fewer Americans die each year of Mad Cow, Meningitis, or e-coli than homo-infected AIDS (44% of all new cases come from them) - no one is willing to "call a spade a spade" and label these people for the walking bio-hazards that they are. C'mon - a 300% increase in Syphillis since 2001? This is a borderline epidemic.

Most of you have said (on the forum, under a condition of anonymity) how you feel about the tainted blood of the sodomites, how unsafe and dangerous it is. What's stopping us from saying it in public?

The Politically Correct blinders need to come off here, and the Truth needs to start being told as much and as soon as possible.

[American Vet Repairman]

"Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country."

The Red Cross won't budge on this one. There are billions of dollars on the line in blood related products. When people feel that the blood is 100% unsafe there will be a mass screaming for alternatives to the GaySatan damaged blood system.

[mware]

Next thing they will say is that intravenous drug users should have a right to donate blood.

[Lindykim]

"More evidence of the culture of death, folks"


When we step off of the 'straight & narrow" (ignore transcendant disciplines aka Ten Commandments) the Law of Consequences kicks in.
If we stubbornly refuse to mend our ways, the Law of Decay sets in....and that includes the decay of reason. Considering that millions of Americans have turned their backs on the 'straight and narrow" it comes as no surprise that insanity flows through America like a river of sludge.

[Clara Lou]

And let gay men donate amongst themselves. I have no problem with that.

[Steely Tom]

I was talking to someone with inside knowledge of the Canadian blood supply system, which was taken away from the Red Cross by the Candian government after the tainted blood scandal (in which thousands of Canadians, many of them hemophiliacs, were infected with AIDS).

This person told me that one of the main reasons that large amounts of infected blood was allowed to be used in transfusions was an unwillingness, on the part of the Canadian Red Cross, to question a donors sexual preference. My friend described it as a "mind set."

(steely)

[anniegetyourgun]

So true, LK. We aren't slouching toward Gomorrah....we're in an full-out sprint.

[scripter]

Homosexual Health Hazards for the year 2005

Gays faced with new STD strains (Miami Herald), FreeRepublic
'New AIDS' spreading among homosexual men (WorldNetDaily), FreeRepublic
Rare sexually transmitted disease reported in Boston (Boston Herald)
Syphilis on the rise with gays (Greenwich Time), FreeRepublic
The African heterosexual AIDS myth (TownHall), FreeRepublic
Party, Play.And Pay (Newsweek), FreeRepublic
HIV 'supervirus' is a warning to all (Sydney Morning Herald), FreeRepublic
S.D. man could have aggressive HIV strain (San Diego), FreeRepublic
All The Condoms In The World (Christian Undergound), FreeRepublic
Criminalizing The Transmission Of The AIDS Virus (FreeRepublic)
HIV harbinger (Original Source Not Available)
Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex (New York Times), FreeRepublic
2 new patients may hold clues to potent HIV Strains analyzed for possible links to N.Y. man's virus (San Francisco Chronicle), FreeRepublic
Rare and Aggressive H.I.V. Reported in New York (New York Times), FreeRepublic
New resistant strain of HIV diagnosed in New Yorker (Crains), FreeRepublic
Homosexual Males Award Us Again (Christian Underground), FreeRepublic
Rare sex disease strikes in New York (Original Source Not Available)
Some gays yearn for infection (PJ Star), FreeRepublic
Erasure star admits he wanted to be diagnosed with HIV (Female First (UK)), FreeRepublic

[sgtbono2002]

I have a brother who had cancer and they wont let him give blood either, although I dont think there is any case or record of anyone having gotten cancer from a transfusion.

[N. Theknow]

You might find this article interesting.

Harvard Homosexual Student Activist Urges Blood Donors to Lie

[SeaBiscuit]

one way or another, the pc liberals are going to find a way to destroy America.

[mware]

Yes prior to giving blood you must fill out a pretty detailed and personal questionnaire. Then they interview you to double check.Sure hope everyone is honest with them but in any case they do several tests prior to using the blood.

I had elective surgery some time ago and made my own blood bank in case it was necessary.