Posted on 05/12/2015 11:49:04 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Obama administration is calling for the end to a lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men, acknowledging that the policy “is perceived by some as discriminatory.”
The Food and Drug Administration proposed new rules on Tuesday that would roll back the ban, though it still restricts gay men from donating blood if they have had sex with another man within a year.
The proposal still marks the country’s biggest step yet toward changing the 30-year-old prohibition.
Critics of the ban, which was enacted during the national AIDS epidemic in 1983 and last updated in 1992, say it ignores mounds of scientific evidence concluding that blood donations from gay men pose no risk than the greater public if properly screened. The FDA said in its draft rules that the ban has become less effective over time, admitting that “some individuals knowingly donate despite the deferral."
The agency will now collect public comments on the rule for 60 days.
The American Medical Association quickly praised the move, releasing a statement that called it “a step in the right direction to end the lifetime ban that prohibits men who have had sex with men (MSM) from ever donating blood.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I believe they test for antibodies, and perform a PCR test for at-risk persons.
That is what I think as well. You can find a virus with PCR, but unless you know that you should be looking for one, it is prohibitively expensive to do a PCR test on every sample of blood.
Trouble is, I think it can sneak through and kill someone if your don't.
These days, if you’re planning surgery it’s always best to stockpile your own blood supply.
On the other hand, if you’re hauled into the ICU, you’re out of luck and taking your chances.
And the FDA doesn’t give a sh*t.
And on top of everything else, the queers want to poison the national blood supply.
Hope I don’t need a transfusion soon. Imagine being in that position, knowing the transfusion could kill you.
Well, chances are that such cases would be far less frequent with the fact that the tests aren’t perfect, and the probability is still up there for a false negative when a person has acquired HIV recently, say weeks ago, there’s also not just the issue of HIV that actively practicing homosexual men are at increased risk for either, Hepatitis and other illnesses are also a problem.
Well, there’s the need for people who don’t practice reckless, risky behavior TO ACTUALLY DONATE BLOOD, hopefully keeping the percentages of tainted blood down in the blood banks. The best we can do at this point is to simply try and compete against the tainted blood present. I am disappointed in the problem, but we can’t just let this be lost by default. People in emergencies such as car wrecks need blood, and whatever is in the blood bank is what they get. If you aren’t allowed to donate such as being in Africa or Europe, I can understand, but we can’t just give up on this one.
There’s always the risk of a false negative, although the risk of a false negative is highest in the few weeks after the individual has contracted HIV. Even then, there are outliers, and you would need other tests for other germs that may have contaminated the blood, and they aren’t perfect, although far fewer cases of infected blood will pass the screenings than used to be the case.
The question is: WHO is willing to take that gamble? And all to satisfy one of BHO’s constituencies. Pathetic.
Prolly should have included this is my comment above.
I donate blood every sixty days and have done so for years.
Letting fags donate blood is just plain stupid. Why ask for trouble? I can see this leading to lawsuits and all kinds of unintended consequences.
The left wants equality at all costs. It’s not “fair” if the poophole crowd gets a disease while the “binary” people don’t get it. So to make us equal, they will mix the poophole crowd’s blood with normal blood.
I know that the armed forces blood bank does a PCR yearly on servicemembers. The ASBP is an amazing program.
Blood letting! I didn’t realize that the constitution allows for blood control.
Here we go again, and this is just in the last week or so for all these things to come to my attention...
Dang it...
I would think with I could see blood letting in the Constitution, but for some reason I can’t find it.
Once again, this shows that I have an older version of the Constitution.
Mine doesn’t list salad bars, raisin control, ketchup speed control, smelly body products, phone handouts, and others as one of the specific authorities given to the federal government.
Can someone point me to where I can download a latest version of the Constitution?
One that specifically authorizes (enumerates) federal government authority over such things as:
- the amount of water in my toilet bowl
- the type of light bulbs I use
- Obamaphone handouts
- blood letting
- body stench removal products
- how fast ketchup should flow out of the bottle
- delicious nutritious kids salad bar
- and also raisin control.
This is how a government behaves when it cares what happens to them.
If a normal person protests, he’ll be branded homophobe. If thousands of people get aids from this, it will be covered up.
Anyone wanting to bring this nonsense to a halt, can simply quit donating their blood....and make sure they know why you quit.
In that case, I recommend ending the FDA.
(So much for protecting public health)
Great. Why should junkies be discriminated against?
the very same people who Feel Microagressed if they SEE a Smoker!
“Let’s see who in the GOP has the guts to make this an issue.”
Well, now that you put it thst way, I’d better start banking my own blood.
The political left is uniformly disgusting. Choosing to kill people so gays won’t feel like we are rejecting their tainted blood is yet another stupid choice leftists make to protect the feelings of perverts.
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.