Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

TXgolfer said:
You can see it that way if you want. For me I would go with the least perceived risk. It's all about risk to me.
Click to expand...

If you concern too much about risk so you can refuse the blood transfusion at hospitals.

Some people still get diseases after blood transfusion, shit happen and it doesn't always means homosexual couples to be blamed.
 
Foxrac said:
If you concern too much about risk so you can refuse the blood transfusion at hospitals.

Some people still get diseases after blood transfusion, shit happen and it doesn't means homosexual couples to be blamed.
Click to expand...

do you realize what would happen to you if you refuse blood transfusion? You will die.
 
Jiro said:
well - your example sounds rather homophobic. I don't care if I'm receiving blood from racist/homophobic/Arabic/etc. As long as blood is untainted... fine with me.
Click to expand...

Let me add. IF you could be 100% certain that NONE of the blood was tainted.......then no it doesn't matter. But we can not be 100% certain.....so again it's about risk.
 
TXgolfer said:
You can see it that way if you want. For me I would go with the least perceived risk. It's all about risk to me.
Click to expand...

My point is - you're using stereotypical reasoning to make risk judgement. It's erroneous. Red Cross used the scientific data based on medical, behavioral, geographic factors.

Health statistics show that men who have sex with men have a higher rate of diseases including HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B. Gay men who would be likely to donate have an HIV prevalence that is over 15 times higher than that of the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Click to expand...

"I do not see this being a gay rights issue," said Dr. Jay Brooks, professor of pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, adding that he favors gay marriage and gays serving in the military.

The issue of blood donation has "nothing to do with someone being gay. Any group that's epidemiologically at risk of making blood unsafe, it's unfortunate. ... It's a matter of epidemiology."

The different standards between gay and straight people exists because the risk of HIV is much lower in heterosexuals, he said.

"The interest of the recipient is greater than any donor," Brooks said. "I'd hate to tell the one person who got HIV through a blood transfusion, 'Sorry, we changed the regulation.' "
Click to expand...

HOWEVER...........

These days, blood screenings are so effective in detecting diseases that the risk of such infection is very small, said Dr. Norbert Gilmore, a professor and clinician at the McGill University Health Center in Canada.

The blood donations go through HIV antigen screening (to detect antibodies produced by the body in response to the virus) and nucleic acid testing. However, there is a "window period" for about two weeks after an individual becomes infected with HIV when these tests cannot detect the virus.

But that risk of this infection is "so small, we should look at the day-to-day realities rather than those infinitesimal risks," said Gilmore, whose research published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal criticized the ban in Canada and the U.S. as unscientific.

The most important issue in this debate should be the safety of the patients, said Mark Skinner, president of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

"This isn't an issue just about HIV. It isn't a gay issue," he said. "This is an issue that relates to safety in the blood supply. Those decisions should be made on science, not based on societal concerns. We readily recognize the MSM [men who have sex with men] ban is discriminatory, but it's discriminatory for a reason.
Click to expand...

If the statistic shows that being infected by tainted blood via blood transfusion has been extremely low for past several years..... then I support lifting the federal ban.
 
TXgolfer said:
Let me add. IF you could be 100% certain that NONE of the blood was tainted.......then no it doesn't matter. But we can not be 100% certain.....so again it's about risk.
Click to expand...

You can if you wanted to spend extra time to be sure it's not tainted, but then it costs money and time, look up gel electrophoresis.
 
Foxrac said:
I know, some people don't have choice. That's just sucks.
Click to expand...

yes. My friend has Hep C because of tainted blood transfusion back in 1980's. At that time - the screening for Hep C was not required.
 
Jiro said:
My point is - you're using stereotypical reasoning to make risk judgement. It's erroneous. Red Cross used the scientific data based on medical, behavioral, geographic factors.





HOWEVER...........



If the statistic shows that being infected by tainted blood via blood transfusion has been extremely low for past several years..... then I support lifting the federal ban.
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly and if it is safe so let kill this federal ban.
 
Foxrac said:
I know, some people don't have choice. That's just sucks.
Click to expand...

Why does it suck???? If blood is a gay man's cause he can still volunteer to help the blood drive. Hand out the questionnaires and so forth. All the benefits of volunteering without the needle. Trust me the oj and cookie aren't that good.
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, exactly and if it is safe so let kill this federal ban.
Click to expand...

yes but your reasoning behind it was gay rights. My reasoning was risk analysis.
 
TXgolfer said:
Why does it suck???? If blood is a gay man's cause he can still volunteer to help the blood drive. Hand out the questionnaires and so forth. All the benefits of volunteering without the needle. Trust me the oj and cookie aren't that good.
Click to expand...

My post isn't about homosexual people but it is about some people who refused to do blood transfusion for varies of reason, including religions and diseases.

You could get disease from blood transfusion, just shit happen and don't assume to blame on homosexual couples.
 
TXgolfer said:
Look up Mistake

:)
Click to expand...

You're assuming there will be mistake, my friend. Assumption is the adversary of the enemy.
I'm saying it can be near perfect if given the time. Yes, there's always that 0.01% chance of human error, but like I said, it can be near perfect.
 
Foxrac, you may not know this but many people are not allowed to donate blood. People on certain medications etc.

This ban is not there to keep gay people down at all. Until there is a way for Red Cross to ensure they can test blood with 100% accuracy, they cannot take a risk.

I know that seems unfair. I think a lot of things are unfair (i.e. the deaf cannot serve in the Army).
 
Steinhauer said:
Foxrac, you may not know this but many people are not allowed to donate blood. People on certain medications etc.

This ban is not there to keep gay people down at all. Until there is a way for Red Cross to ensure they can test blood with 100% accuracy, they cannot take a risk.

I know that seems unfair. I think a lot of things are unfair (i.e. the deaf cannot serve in the Army).
Click to expand...

What is your comment about Jiro's post above?
AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

If it is safer so federal ban is just worthless.
 
Steinhauer said:
Foxrac, you may not know this but many people are not allowed to donate blood. People on certain medications etc.

This ban is not there to keep gay people down at all. Until there is a way for Red Cross to ensure they can test blood with 100% accuracy, they cannot take a risk.
Click to expand...

100% accuracy? cannot take a risk? let's see.... Las Vegas.... a very sinful promiscuous city... would you take blood transfusion from Las Vegas blood bank?
 
Foxrac said:
What is your comment about Jiro's post above?
AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

If it is safer so federal ban is just worthless.
Click to expand...

from his post:

The blood donations go through HIV antigen screening (to detect antibodies produced by the body in response to the virus) and nucleic acid testing. However, there is a "window period" for about two weeks after an individual becomes infected with HIV when these tests cannot detect the virus.
Click to expand...

What that means is that the tests that are being done right now, cannot conclusively with 100% accuracy screen out bad blood.
 
Foxrac said:
It is just happen so rarely?
Click to expand...

It is the nature of the virus, all it takes is one bad batch to infect 200 - 1,000 more people (theoretically). That is too great a risk until a better testing method is done.
 
Back
Top