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

Jiro said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nurse: Is it okay to have blood transfusion?
Patient: Where blood is coming from?
Nurse: It is from Las Vegas blood bank.
Patient: NO! NO! NO! *cover their body*.
 
naisho said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have kids??? I do. Let me tell ya. it doesn't matter if the risk of Batch A is .0000001% and batch B is .00000011% when it's your child you will choose the least risk.

The point is......assuming blood bank supplies are at reasonable levels there is absolutely no reason to add any risk to the pool.

Now if blood supplies are extremely low.......perhaps you add the risk because THAT risk is lower than the risk of running out of blood. But otherwise why add any risk???
 
Steinhauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, no one is perfect and just happen so rarely.
 
Steinhauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

huh? NO!

they do not combine everybody's blood into one container.
 
Let's just pray they find the cure for AIDs very very soon. Not better testing methods ... no ... a CURE!!!
 
Jiro said:
huh? NO!

they do not combine everybody's blood into one container.
Click to expand...

ok, think ... suppose the one who gets the blood is a tattoo artist. He infects his clients?

Or a heroin user .....

that is how one bad bag of blood can infect more than just one person. Then those whom become infected, infect others and so on.
 
Steinhauer said:
ok, think ... suppose the one who gets the blood is a tattoo artist. He infects his clients?

Or a heroin user .....
Click to expand...

It happens is share the needle and need be clean with alcohol or put needle in biohazard box so use new needles as always.
 
Jiro said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you could choose blood from Las Vegas or blood from Boise which would you pick?????
 
TXgolfer said:
If you could choose blood from Las Vegas or blood from Boise which would you pick?????
Click to expand...

you can't really get to pick one. When you need blood transfusion - it's because you are on the verge of death.
 
TXgolfer said:
If you could choose blood from Las Vegas or blood from Boise which would you pick?????
Click to expand...

hmmmm ... from a Vampire's perspective? The undead would more than likely take it from Las Vegas (heard its spicier). ;)
 
TXgolfer said:
Do you have kids??? I do. Let me tell ya. it doesn't matter if the risk of Batch A is .0000001% and batch B is .00000011% when it's your child you will choose the least risk.

The point is......assuming blood bank supplies are at reasonable levels there is absolutely no reason to add any risk to the pool.

Now if blood supplies are extremely low.......perhaps you add the risk because THAT risk is lower than the risk of running out of blood. But otherwise why add any risk???
Click to expand...


Let me follow your logic.

Your child is going to either die from anemia, has a critical infection, or whatever. You can extend the time before his/her death due to the available blood.

You have the choice to choose potentially infected blood with a 99.99% guarantee rate of no issues after a slew of tests (electrophoresis passed, usable).

Are you saying you would rather not give him the blood due to the 0.01% chance of infection and let him die sooner?

Almost nothing in life is guaranteed 100%, TXgolfer. Almost all the things you do everyday in daily life is not 100% guaranteed.
 
naisho said:
Let me follow your logic.

Your child is going to either die from anemia, has a critical infection, or whatever. You can extend the time before his/her death due to the available blood.

You have the choice to choose potentially infected blood with a 99.99% guarantee rate of no issues after a slew of tests (electrophoresis passed, usable).

Are you saying you would rather not give him the blood due to the 0.01% chance of infection and let him die sooner?

Almost nothing in life is guaranteed 100%, TXgolfer. Almost all the things you do everyday in daily life is not 100% guaranteed.
Click to expand...


there are two things in life that are 100% guaranteed.
 
The law itself isn't homophobic but the fact that it has been upheld and left unchanged for so long despite the changes in demographics of HIV/AIDS rates makes it hard not to suspect there is some element of homophobia at play.

Needless to say, asking what blood is better from what city is just absurd. If someone carries a disease that batch of blood is contaminated, not the entire city of Las Vegas or Boise. :roll:
 
Steinhauer said:
Let's just pray they find the cure for AIDs very very soon. Not better testing methods ... no ... a CURE!!!
Click to expand...

actually - better testing methods is a much more cost-effective measure to combat against AIDS. That way - it will significantly reduce the spread of AIDS and eventually will lead to reducing # of walking HIV-infected people
 
Back
Top