Skip to comments.Ban on gay blood donors revisited
Posted on 06/10/2010 9:12:41 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
Groups urge government to lift lifetime restriction
Should gay men be allowed to donate blood? A government health committee is re-examining that question today.
A regulation created at the height of the 1980s' AIDS epidemic banned men who have had sex with another man since 1977 from ever giving blood.
Advocacy groups, blood-collection organizations and some members of Congress are calling for the Food and Drug Administration to revise the lifetime ban, which has been reviewed twice in the past 10 years, but left unchanged.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
From the New York Timesas recently as 2008...
The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that 56,300 people became newly infected with H.I.V in 2006, compared with the 40,000 figure the agency has cited as the recent annual incidence of the disease.
The findings confirm that H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, has its greatest effect among gay and bisexual men of all races (53 percent of all new infections) and among African-American men and women.
are people really this stupid or really this malicious?
Isn’t there a testing protocol in place? Has anyone(in recent years) received HIV+ blood?
If the answer is no, I don’t see the problem. No difference from you or I.
Yes, a # of people are this stupid. All in the name of political correctness. Let’s cut the nonsense: it’s not because they are fags, but the fags lead a degenerate, irresponsible lifestyle.
I agree. As someone who got Hep C way back when from a blood transfusion I am for strict guidelines for giving blood.
The cost of testing the bolld will drive up the price to the recipient.
NO MATTER WHAT— I would never want blood from an HIV person.
Long time friend of mine is fighting Hepatitis for the rest of her days because of a blood transfusion she got over 30 years ago.
I realize that. But don’t the blood banks hold the blood and do proper testing? I can’t imagine the blood supply safety depending on self-reporting their sexuality.
Again, has anyone gotten AIDS from a blood bank in the last 20 yrs?
If not, blood is blood.
I sure cannot spell this AM.
We don’t need the blood that badly, and giving blood is hardly a “right”.
However, maybe they could set up a special collection to be used for HIV-positive patients, and gay men could give blood for that purpose.
AIDS is a gay disease whenever it is politically advantageous...
The ban should be extended to anyone engaging in anal sex.
HIV positive blood is removed by screening assays that require an additional test to verify an HIV positive result.
This means that you get to pay for blood that can’t be used.
Additionally the screening assays can’t be made perfect. The more HIV positive blood that gets donated, the more likely that someone will get HIV positive blood, serum, cells or platelets.
It would be such a rare occurance, it will be almost impossible to tell how the victim acquired the HIV virus, leaving the family of the victim to speculate on what the victim has been doing.
It seems to me that irrespective of how robust and effective the blood screening protocols may be, it only makes logical sense to eliminate blood from the most high risk groups. Science & medicine should apply logic and reason, not emotion associated with political correctness. It's illogical to solicit blood from a population demographic that is insanely more at-risk for HIV, than the general population is.
Exactly. The question isn’t “are you gay?” but “are you a man who has had sex with another man sinc 19XX?” But since homos can’t separate their behavior from their “gayness”, this question gets them worked into a tizzy.
Great, now we’re putting political correctness ahead of the safety of the nations blood supply...
Right now, blood is tested in large batches, because the infection rate is so low. If any thing appears in the batch, every donor is disqualified for life. This is efficient, because so many potentially dangerous donors are prescreened out. If you open to door to people whose behavior automatically increases their risk of carrying many different kinds of dieseases, screening protocols will have to be changed, causing the price and availibilty of blood to rise and and become limited.
Your argument that no one has been infected from blood in the last 20 years is exactly why we shouldn't alter the procedures. They work, and people stay safe.
Donating blood is to help people. More people are helped if we limit their exposure to many different dieseases.
There wouldn’t be any blood.
Look, I’m just trying to get facts. There is no way to screen blood for behavior. The blood supply is safe. This seems to be a silly issue.