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.
Political correctness is killing us.
Everything you said is true; but, I predict that political correctness will rule the day and we will see gay guys giving blood again. I also predict that you will see a rise in people storing their own blood before elective surgeries.
Hmm. Could be time to store some of my own blood...
The fact that lesbians are allowed to donate blood, proves that the ban on gay male blood is not homophobic.
Like the ban on gay donors banning folks who participate in anal sex would also have to rely on the honor system. So they could lie too if they wanted.
I can also lie if I wanted to give blood and am not supposed to. I lived in Europe during the Mad Cow scare and am also on the list of not being able to donate blood. I'm fine with that and surely don't feel discriminated against. And I certainly don't need convincing.
The problem is the attitude of the gay community that considers not being able to donate blood as a discrimination issue rather than common sense due to their sexual behavior.
I am at 103 donations, and I don’t do anal sex, so we have at least one donnor left.
The blood supply IS safe as long as we keep in place screening criteria as we now have. What makes you think the level of safety will remain static once prohibitions to unacceptably risky behavior are lifted?
Why in the 21st century are we not using synthetic blood replacements?
Bravo for your generosity!
I'm O+ and would love to donate, but with my history of malaria, dengue fever & hepatitis, they won't take mine.
This is a no-brainer. Perhaps that's why our small-c congress has such a hard time with it.
I was set to donate a few weeks ago, the morning of the donation I broke out in a rash from my new detergent.....they would not draw blood from me due to the rash on my arms.
Label the blood, “MSM donated”.
The Red Cross trying to turn a few more bucks. How many people have AIDS because of the political correctness of the Red Cross.
I’ve decided against those prostate drugs, because they are on the deferral list and I’d loose a couple years. I think I’ll go for at least 120.
The variable is the same. If the point is homosexuals giving blood, they are going to whether or not there is a “law”. Noone knows but that person what behavior they have engaged in. Its up to the blood banks to ensure blood is clean NO MATTER the donor.
I just wouldn’t want to lay in the hospital worrying about who gave it. ALL blood should be 100% prior to giving it no matter the donor or their behavior. Straight people do sick shit too.
“Yes, um... I’ll have the kosher blood, please.”
They’ve been told to lie about their behavior to be able to donate blood. Not only do they want to kill themselves slowly they want the same for others.
Transplant patient not told organ donor a homosexual.
A woman in her 30s who is one of the four organ transplant patients infected with HIV and hepatitis was not told that the infected donor was high risk, and had previously rejected another donor because of his lifestyle, her attorney said.
The woman had been told the donor was a healthy young man, her attorney said. But on Tuesday, hospital officials disclosed to the woman that he was actually high-risk, a 38-year-old gay man, Demetrio said. CDC guidelines say that gay men who are sexually active should not be used as organ donors unless the patient is in imminent danger of death.
But to state that the questionnaire will not have ANY effect on who gives is false. There are enough people who will not give if prohibited by the questionnaire that the decline in risk should be significant. And if "straight" people were anywhere near as risk-prone as homosexuals have been proven to be, yes, I'd want that behavior prohibited as well to qualify as a donor.
Their propaganda has always been: “Aids is everyone’s problem.” Now they want to make that falsehood a reality.
I was donating blood on a regular basis. Every time I was subjected to a barrage of questions about my travels and my sex life. The question sessions lasted for several minutes. They read each question and ask for a yes or no answer. I totally refuse to donate again until that mess stops. My blood pressure peaks when a young woman questions me about my sexual history.
I am in none of the high risk groups. I would have no problem reading the questions as a group and answering once.
Yep. In all honesty, I don’t think folks that are HIV+ are lining up to give blood.
They know better(for the most part).
The end result is what counts which is clean blood. No matter the donor.
If anything, the prohibition creates a formal censure of this type of behavior, which tends to have a powerful effect on those who would otherwise like to violate health laws.
If you get the chance and haven't done so, peruse the CDC's website under HIV/AIDS and you might be appalled at the large number of cases attributed to such a small segment of the population. Any sane society would quarantine.
Let them donate blood but it only goes to other gay men.
You apparently don't understand the homo-agenda. They will demand that their blood be indistinguishable from all others in the blood supply. Otherwise, it would be "discriminaaaaation."
I'm not being facecious.