Jump to content


Photo

Gay men cannot donate blood, but you can change it.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
40 replies to this topic

#1 Julio93

Julio93

    Hammer Bro.

  • Members
  • 1,564 posts
  • NNID:Julio93
  • Fandom:
    All Nintendo & Capcom franchises.

Posted 20 August 2013 - 10:30 PM

https://www.change.o...ntgb_qboFtVfzEA

 

There was a time not too long ago where as mayor, I could officiate a wedding, but could not get married myself.  I recall a situation in which the boy scouts came to visit a city council meeting in order to earn their merit badge and after the meeting, a boy asked me, "Were you also a boy scout -- is that how you became mayor?" And most recently, I hosted a blood drive on city property, but was banned from donating blood myself.

As the mayor of Campbell, providing for the welfare of the general public is a top priority.  As a gay man, however, I am conflicted in my advocacy for blood drives.   Under current U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, a man who has sex with another man is deferred for life from donating blood.  The ban was imposed in 1983 when there were no reliable tests for screening blood for HIV/AIDS.  It was also made during a time of mass medical confusion and cultural homophobia associated with HIV/AIDS.  The current FDA ban is wildly outdated and perpetuates unfair labels against gay and bisexual men that live on through decades of discrimination.

Advances in technology and the understanding of HIV/AIDS have come a long way. The fact of the matter is that blood donations are safest and most effective when using rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among blood donors who engage in similar risk activities.  These screening strategies provide an inclusive, internationally recognized means for keeping blood supplies safe.

In fact, the American Medical Association and the American Red Cross are both in support of a reevaluation of the lifetime ban of gay men from donating blood.  And most recently, over eighty-two Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate have asked for the reevaluation.

We are behind in our policies in comparison with other countries.  Both Canada and the UK in recent years have lifted their lifetime ban restrictions. Regardless, blood donations save lives, and although I take issue with the FDA's policy, the communal need for an adequate and safe blood supply cannot be ignored. To prevent a blood drive on the grounds of public policy would be to place the citizens of Campbell and my community in danger.  Ultimately, public policy can be solved over time, while an unpredictable act of nature can warrant an immediate need for a blood supply.

Although I support blood drives, I will always stay committed to the fight for the rights of all people. Members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community simply want to be in recognized and committed loving relationships, be able to defend our country in the armed forces to fight for the freedoms that we value, be part of an invaluable institution that gives young boys the skill sets to become contributing members of our society and finally, to be able to sacrifice of themselves and give blood to save another’s life.   I firmly believe that the lifetime prohibition on gay and bisexual blood donors will one day exist as a relic of historical discrimination and that there will be a future in which we cherish gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people as equal members of society.

 

 

 

I already signed it. Its messed up that this was even brought up.


kingdom-hearts-3-final-fantasy-15-slice.

 


#2 Socalmuscle

Socalmuscle

    Hammer Bro.

  • Members
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 01:02 AM

*
POPULAR

Look up the ratio of gay men with HIV/aids (formerly known as GRIDS for very good reason) and you'll see it's not a discrimination issue.

As sodomy is a very major part of that lifestyle choice, HIV/AIDS is just the tip of the iceberg. Autoimmune and venereal disease abounds.

Scanning the blood takes time and money and a big chunk is found to be a waste of time in the gay blood donations.

All kinds of reasons why it's a good thing to not go there.

It's just wisdom.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 21 August 2013 - 01:05 AM.


#3 Gaymer

Gaymer

    Xbox Fanboy?

  • Members
  • 906 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 06:10 AM

Look up the ratio of gay men with HIV/aids (formerly known as GRIDS for very good reason) and you'll see it's not a discrimination issue.

As sodomy is a very major part of that lifestyle choice, HIV/AIDS is just the tip of the iceberg. Autoimmune and venereal disease abounds.

Scanning the blood takes time and money and a big chunk is found to be a waste of time in the gay blood donations.

All kinds of reasons why it's a good thing to not go there.

It's just wisdom.

I actually have to agree with this somewhat. There are far too many homosexuals who engage in sexual activity with more than several partners. Whenever I meet another homosexual, they tend to be extremely sexually active and usually want to engage in activity with me. I'm not that type of person, however. It's actually quite sickening. I feel as if I'm in the minority within the gay community.

 

The part I don't agree with is when you say it's a lifestyle choice. I don't know about other homosexuals, but I never chose to be discriminated against. This wasn't a choice for me and if I had that choice, I'd rather be a straight man.


Edited by Gaymer, 21 August 2013 - 06:12 AM.


#4 Nollog

Nollog

    Chain Chomp

  • Banned
  • 776 posts
  • NNID:Nollog
  • Fandom:
    Creepy Stalker Girl

Posted 21 August 2013 - 07:39 AM

They test your blood before you donate, i don't get why they need to discriminate.


Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t


#5 Mitch

Mitch

    Dingus

  • Members
  • 1,839 posts
  • NNID:Mitch13pavel
  • Fandom:
    Mitch :3

Posted 21 August 2013 - 07:52 AM

*
POPULAR

I actually have to agree with this somewhat. There are far too many homosexuals who engage in sexual activity with more than several partners. Whenever I meet another homosexual, they tend to be extremely sexually active and usually want to engage in activity with me. 

 

If only I could find herds of women who lived this lifestyle and they accepted me into their clan as one of their own....If only



#6 Zinix

Zinix

    YA HOMIE.

  • Members
  • 4,410 posts
  • NNID:zinixzero
  • Fandom:
    The Twilight Zone Fandom

Posted 21 August 2013 - 08:23 AM

Look up the ratio of gay men with HIV/aids (formerly known as GRIDS for very good reason) and you'll see it's not a discrimination issue.

As sodomy is a very major part of that lifestyle choice, HIV/AIDS is just the tip of the iceberg. Autoimmune and venereal disease abounds.

Scanning the blood takes time and money and a big chunk is found to be a waste of time in the gay blood donations.

All kinds of reasons why it's a good thing to not go there.

It's just wisdom.

Couldn't they test them before hand and just reject them if they have it?


“Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete.”— Rod Serling, “The Twilight Zone” The Obsolete Man

Smoke meth. Hail Satan. Watch the yearly Twilight Zone marathons. Talk to dead people. Everyone is gay. Ignore people. Live life to the fullest.


#7 Hunter

Hunter

    Cheetah

  • Members
  • 1,664 posts
  • NNID:Mr.Orange
  • Fandom:
    spyro, crash bandicoot, prince of persia

Posted 21 August 2013 - 09:30 AM

Couldn't they test them before hand and just reject them if they have it?

 

They do. They usually check every donation for HIV, Hepatitis B and C, and HTLV (well that is what they do in the UK anyway).

 

Socalmuscle's argument makes no sense because they screen for lots of different illnesses and diseases before they use the blood anyway so I highly doubt it is a cost factor. Plus, if it isn't a discrimination issue then why have several countries changed the policy? If it was such a risk factor they wouldn't have changed it.



#8 Zinix

Zinix

    YA HOMIE.

  • Members
  • 4,410 posts
  • NNID:zinixzero
  • Fandom:
    The Twilight Zone Fandom

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:03 AM

Yeah his argument is really futile


“Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete.”— Rod Serling, “The Twilight Zone” The Obsolete Man

Smoke meth. Hail Satan. Watch the yearly Twilight Zone marathons. Talk to dead people. Everyone is gay. Ignore people. Live life to the fullest.


#9 Socalmuscle

Socalmuscle

    Hammer Bro.

  • Members
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 01:54 PM

The testing takes place AFTER BLOOD IS DRAWN.

 

Anyone denying this simply isn't living in the real world, has never had blood taken, etc.

 

And the testing that takes place in the lab doesn't immediately return accurate results.  It takes time.

 

That is the point.

 

It takes manpower, needles, storage vials, electricity (for climate control), just to take the blood.

 

Then it takes more manpower, electricity, and lab time to screen the blood.

 

When they comes to a point where a very higher percentage of rejected blood donations are from a particular group of people, it simply makes sense to no longer involve that group.  It is not discrimination.  it is simply science at work.

 

It would be foolish to keep wasting time and money when you know you are going to end up destroying much of that blood.

 

Like I said before, it it wisdom.

 

It's not a discrimination issue.

 

There is an inordinate amount of disease, many of which are life-threatening amongst those who choose that lifestyle.  That's all there is to it.



#10 Nollog

Nollog

    Chain Chomp

  • Banned
  • 776 posts
  • NNID:Nollog
  • Fandom:
    Creepy Stalker Girl

Posted 21 August 2013 - 02:01 PM

The testing takes place AFTER BLOOD IS DRAWN.

 

Anyone denying this simply isn't living in the real world, has never had blood taken, etc.

 

And the testing that takes place in the lab doesn't immediately return accurate results.  It takes time.

 

That is the point.

 

It takes manpower, needles, storage vials, electricity (for climate control), just to take the blood.

 

Then it takes more manpower, electricity, and lab time to screen the blood.

 

When they comes to a point where a very higher percentage of rejected blood donations are from a particular group of people, it simply makes sense to no longer involve that group.  It is not discrimination.  it is simply science at work.

 

It would be foolish to keep wasting time and money when you know you are going to end up destroying much of that blood.

 

Like I said before, it it wisdom.

 

It's not a discrimination issue.

 

There is an inordinate amount of disease, many of which are life-threatening amongst those who choose that lifestyle.  That's all there is to it.

Yeah but the point is they take the blood, and test it.

If they test it anyway, which they should, since it goes inside another human (http://www.irishheal...le.html?id=5643 why this was such a huge deal here) what's the point in denying anyone from even donating?

 

It doesn't raise costs unless you don't test every vial anyway.

If you're not testing every vial, you're a stupid worthless monster.


Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t


#11 stardust

stardust

    Cheep-Cheep

  • Members
  • 144 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 02:29 PM

here's why you should not give blood if you are gay:

 

Read this:  http://www.cdc.gov/h...isk/gender/msm/

 

Also from the Red Cross website (http://www.redcrossb...qs#Blood_Safety)

 

For the question: Is it true that I can get a free AIDS test when I donate blood?

"You should not give blood to get tested for AIDS. Using blood donation as a way to get tested could put the blood supply at risk and endanger patients. HIV antibodies may take a few weeks to develop after infection with the virus. If you were recently infected, you might have a negative test result, yet be able to infect the recipient of your donation. That is why you must not give blood if you are at risk of getting AIDS or other infectious diseases. Individuals at risk for contracting HIV should contact their local health department for AIDS testing."

 

So there is that slim marginal possibility someone can get affected with something.  Despite this, the US is considered to be the most safest blood supply in the world.

http://aids.about.co...bloodsupply.htm



#12 Socalmuscle

Socalmuscle

    Hammer Bro.

  • Members
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 02:31 PM

Yeah but the point is they take the blood, and test it.

If they test it anyway, which they should, since it goes inside another human (http://www.irishheal...le.html?id=5643 why this was such a huge deal here) what's the point in denying anyone from even donating?

 

It doesn't raise costs unless you don't test every vial anyway.

If you're not testing every vial, you're a stupid worthless monster.

 

That's the whole point of not opening donation to that group of people.  Because it would be a wasted of time and money, since much of it would be destroyed. All of that testing, etc. and no reward - no blood to keep on hand.  They have already spent the money and time to take the blood and test it.  With the hopes of using it to save lives.  if they are getting an inordinate amount of blood that cannot be used from a specific group, then it makes sense to no longer open donations up to that group. It has nothing to do with "oh noes! they r teh g@y!" It has to do with a very large percentage of people with your particular lifestyle choices donate blood that must be rejected. so it makes sense to simply close that off.

 

When you see a pattern (ie: x% of donations from this group is far more prone to be rejected than these other groups), you tend to make decisions that help to make the process safer, more efficient, financially viable, and justifiable to your finanical backers.  If there is a way to prevent the waste (ie: money and time spent - no blood being viable), then you would be wise to do something about it.

 

it's simple science and accounting.  No discrimination.



#13 Nollog

Nollog

    Chain Chomp

  • Banned
  • 776 posts
  • NNID:Nollog
  • Fandom:
    Creepy Stalker Girl

Posted 21 August 2013 - 02:46 PM

That's the whole point of not opening donation to that group of people.  Because it would be a wasted of time and money, since much of it would be destroyed. All of that testing, etc. and no reward - no blood to keep on hand.  They have already spent the money and time to take the blood and test it.  With the hopes of using it to save lives.  if they are getting an inordinate amount of blood that cannot be used from a specific group, then it makes sense to no longer open donations up to that group. It has nothing to do with "oh noes! they r teh g@y!" It has to do with a very large percentage of people with your particular lifestyle choices donate blood that must be rejected. so it makes sense to simply close that off.

 

When you see a pattern (ie: x% of donations from this group is far more prone to be rejected than these other groups), you tend to make decisions that help to make the process safer, more efficient, financially viable, and justifiable to your finanical backers.  If there is a way to prevent the waste (ie: money and time spent - no blood being viable), then you would be wise to do something about it.

 

it's simple science and accounting.  No discrimination.

Then we shouldn't allow black people near our farms because they'll eat all our chickens.


Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t


#14 stardust

stardust

    Cheep-Cheep

  • Members
  • 144 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 03:04 PM

Then we shouldn't allow black people near our farms because they'll eat all our chickens.

 

you completely ignored the logic in this.  Read what I posted.



Here is a case you should read about.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5941a3.htm



#15 Hunter

Hunter

    Cheetah

  • Members
  • 1,664 posts
  • NNID:Mr.Orange
  • Fandom:
    spyro, crash bandicoot, prince of persia

Posted 21 August 2013 - 03:16 PM

The thing is, this is a blanket ban where anyone who has slept with another man, even 20 years ago, cannot donate blood. It doesn't take into account those who are in long term relationships or civil partnerships.

 

People who have had contact with those who used needles to take drugs and females that have had contact with bisexual men both have a deferral period before they are allowed to donate blood.

 

There are constantly blood shortages and banning a whole group of healthy people because they are at a slightly higher risk to contract HIV is just stupid. Technology has advanced and the risk of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion is low because of improvements in tests and safeguards against diseases.

 

And even with the costs of testing more donations, more lives will be saved because of these costs. I think saving lives is a bigger priority than the cost of testing more donors.


Edited by Hunter, 21 August 2013 - 03:18 PM.


#16 Nollog

Nollog

    Chain Chomp

  • Banned
  • 776 posts
  • NNID:Nollog
  • Fandom:
    Creepy Stalker Girl

Posted 21 August 2013 - 03:31 PM

you completely ignored the logic in this.  Read what I posted.



Here is a case you should read about.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5941a3.htm

So, people who plunge their dicks into another man, or lick another woman's carpet, are just looking for free blood tests?

There's always a risk no matter what you have sex with.

 

Also, curiousness here:

If I have a homosexual sexual relationship, and get myself tested, am found to be clean, and again 6 months later, clean again etc., then I try to donate blood, I'll be refused, right?


Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t


#17 Socalmuscle

Socalmuscle

    Hammer Bro.

  • Members
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 04:23 PM

Then we shouldn't allow black people near our farms because they'll eat all our chickens.

 

 

That is the stupidest, most ignorant reply anyone could possibly make regarding this subject.  Being black and choosing who you have relations with are two completely different things.  

 

And it's not about denying certain people "free blood tests," though that is a legitmate problem.  Idiots wasting other people's time and money just because they don't want to be responsible and pay for a test.

 

And in fact, the issue that there have been some caught doing that reveals how expensive the blood scanning is.

Tthus adding even more weight to the need to not open it up to that group which represents a disproportionate amount of rejected blood samples.

 

It's basically throwing time and money away. Instead, they wisely chose to close donating off to that one group.  It is wise, it makes sense, and it has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone's choice of how they conduct their private lives.

 

sounds like someone who didn't thing it through got all bent and decided to make a big deal out of a misunderstanding.  Shame.  Happens way too often.



#18 Nollog

Nollog

    Chain Chomp

  • Banned
  • 776 posts
  • NNID:Nollog
  • Fandom:
    Creepy Stalker Girl

Posted 21 August 2013 - 04:33 PM

 

And it's not about denying certain people "free blood tests," though that is a legitmate problem.  Idiots wasting other people's time and money just because they don't want to be responsible and pay for a test.

So only heterosexuals can be responsible?

http://cnn.com


Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t


#19 stardust

stardust

    Cheep-Cheep

  • Members
  • 144 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 04:42 PM

That would be very careless of you to donate blood like that, if you know you are in the greater risk category for getting HIV/AIDS.

 

While it can be argued that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, I believe it is a lifestyle choice to have sexual partners.  You are a risk when you decide to have sex with other men.  You understand these risks that you take when you do so.  However, you probably forgot about the part of the population who are probably gay and don't engage in sex - at all.  Ever heard of celibate gay people?  It is very misleading to say all gay people are banned from donation blood.  I've seen the questions.  Here they are:

https://www.aabb.org...es/dhqaabb.aspx

 

But you can do what you want- hell, go ahead and lie about yourself when you are given the questions.  The only person that will have to live with this is you and the person you may have infected.



#20 Socalmuscle

Socalmuscle

    Hammer Bro.

  • Members
  • 1,677 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:03 PM

So only heterosexuals can be responsible?

http://cnn.com

 

Who said that?

 

Sheesh.

 

Now you again show your ability to miss the point.  Anyone can be irresponsible.  hetero or not, it's irresponsible to not get tested if your are going to make those kinds of lifestyle choices.

 

if someone was saying "hey, you can't buy cereal because of your private choices" then that would be messed up.  but someone saying, "hey, we can't afford to keep paying for all of these samples that we can't use" is simple math.  and there is the safety factor too.  What if there was a screening mistake? then your mom needs a transfusion and gets HIV.  I'm sorry, but if someone is going to have a pity party because they can't have their blood in someone else's body over cost and safety issues, then they have some other kind of problem going on.  and then to try to overturn it just so they can "feel better" but drive up the cost of providing life-saving services while simultaneously bringing down the safety of that service - that's just selfish and sick.


Edited by Socalmuscle, 21 August 2013 - 05:05 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Anti-Spam Bots!