Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, what are the figures of per capita HIV infection among homosexuals, drug users, and prostitutes vs. everyone else? I'd certainly have to know those before formulating an opinion on this matter.
does this mean that African's can't donate and people from that area and such?
im actually a part of an hiv/aids study to find a vaccine. i dont have it (you have to be healthy to do the study anyway) but i feel its for a good cause, and i get paid to do it :p
That's like... an injustice. I mean, they're like us, just that they like people from the same sex. I have 3 gay friends now and they're like the biggest fun in the world. I even think they behave better than normal guys.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="magenta">Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That's like... an injustice. I mean, they're like us, just that they like people from the same sex. I have 3 gay friends now and they're like the biggest fun in the world. I even think they behave better than normal guys.[/QUOTE]
minus the bitching
minus the bitching
I think it's absurd. Gays, IV drug users and prostitutes are banned for life.
What about spouses/partners of those who've had sex with hookers? Or with partners of drug users? Or a woman whose husband experimented with a guy? Or rape victims...
I think what they should focus on is how and if donated blood is tested. Wasn't there an incident not long ago with the Red Cross where they hadn't gone through the proper procedures and much of the donated blood had to be destroyed? I believe that was after either 9/11 or Katrina. Who donated wasn't the issue. They were concerned the blood might be contaminated. Which means to me, it doesn't matter who donates, blood must be screened.
THAT's what they should focus on, IMO.
What about spouses/partners of those who've had sex with hookers? Or with partners of drug users? Or a woman whose husband experimented with a guy? Or rape victims...
I think what they should focus on is how and if donated blood is tested. Wasn't there an incident not long ago with the Red Cross where they hadn't gone through the proper procedures and much of the donated blood had to be destroyed? I believe that was after either 9/11 or Katrina. Who donated wasn't the issue. They were concerned the blood might be contaminated. Which means to me, it doesn't matter who donates, blood must be screened.
THAT's what they should focus on, IMO.
Oh, I read about this yesterday.
Some things on the Blood Donation thing you can lie about pretty easily...like have you had any tattoos in the last year. You technically can't donate for a year after you get them, but I specifically remember donating a few months after I got my first tattoo. But the HIV thing is a different story.
Here is a link to some more info:
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm
These are stats for the US. As you'll see, the number of cases in the US are predominately men (Black men at that) and the numbers are higher for homosexual men. But that number represents everyone living with AIDS now...and that means people who were exposed years and years ago. I know that the fastest growing group as per exposure is black women, and more people are being exposed to AIDS via heterosexual contact, while the numbers who get it from homosexual contact are dropping.
I personally think that banning them for life is out-dated, especially when they always complain about shortages in the blood supply. What they don't always tell you is that it's very difficult for women to donate blood at all, because we naturally have lower iron levels than men, and since they want an iron level that is so high most of the time it's men who are doing the donating. Therefore, it appears to me that by banning almost a third of the half of the population that they will accept blood from, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
The rule was good when tests for AIDS were primitive and had to wait for a year after exposure to pick up on the presence of HIV, but as the article pointed out, tests have advanced. They can now detect the HIV virus less than a month after exposure. So maybe making it like Tattoos and piercings, where you are banned from donating for 6 months or something, would be better.
I personally know many gay men who would love to donate blood to help out, but they can't because of their sexual preferences.
Also, don't you think it's interesting that gay men are barred from donating, but they don't ask about women who are lesbians? Granted it's harder, but you can still get HIV that way.
Some things on the Blood Donation thing you can lie about pretty easily...like have you had any tattoos in the last year. You technically can't donate for a year after you get them, but I specifically remember donating a few months after I got my first tattoo. But the HIV thing is a different story.
Here is a link to some more info:
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm
These are stats for the US. As you'll see, the number of cases in the US are predominately men (Black men at that) and the numbers are higher for homosexual men. But that number represents everyone living with AIDS now...and that means people who were exposed years and years ago. I know that the fastest growing group as per exposure is black women, and more people are being exposed to AIDS via heterosexual contact, while the numbers who get it from homosexual contact are dropping.
I personally think that banning them for life is out-dated, especially when they always complain about shortages in the blood supply. What they don't always tell you is that it's very difficult for women to donate blood at all, because we naturally have lower iron levels than men, and since they want an iron level that is so high most of the time it's men who are doing the donating. Therefore, it appears to me that by banning almost a third of the half of the population that they will accept blood from, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
The rule was good when tests for AIDS were primitive and had to wait for a year after exposure to pick up on the presence of HIV, but as the article pointed out, tests have advanced. They can now detect the HIV virus less than a month after exposure. So maybe making it like Tattoos and piercings, where you are banned from donating for 6 months or something, would be better.
I personally know many gay men who would love to donate blood to help out, but they can't because of their sexual preferences.
Also, don't you think it's interesting that gay men are barred from donating, but they don't ask about women who are lesbians? Granted it's harder, but you can still get HIV that way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="magenta">Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I mean, they're like us, just that they like people from the same sex...[/QUOTE]
So do the aliens...
Why don't we just ship all that tainted blood somewhere... like northern Alaska. It's way too cold to catch Aids up there. Tell 'em it's a new Starbucks flavor.
So do the aliens...
Why don't we just ship all that tainted blood somewhere... like northern Alaska. It's way too cold to catch Aids up there. Tell 'em it's a new Starbucks flavor.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Also, don't you think it's interesting that gay men are barred from donating, but they don't ask about women who are lesbians? Granted it's harder, but you can still get HIV that way.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's a discriminatory issue. It's an issue of the interpretation of the facts. Lesbians never really were at the forefront of HIV transmission - not nearly as much as drug users, gay men, and prostitutes (this might be a whole different story if prostitution were legal). It sounds discriminatory, but those really are the facts.
The real issue is how trustworthy HIV testing of blood is. Near 100% may seem good for the aggregate population, but what happens to the one person who unfairly obtains HIV from a blood transfusion? That could lead to a massive lawsuit, for the government and all organizations involved. It's a tough decision, and it wouldn't make sense for the FDA to actively pursue discrimination against homosexual men, drug users, and prostitutes - especially since these groups don't even benefit from DONATING their blood.
I in no way have formulated an opinion on this matter, by the way. I'm just setting up things for discussion.
Also, don't you think it's interesting that gay men are barred from donating, but they don't ask about women who are lesbians? Granted it's harder, but you can still get HIV that way.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's a discriminatory issue. It's an issue of the interpretation of the facts. Lesbians never really were at the forefront of HIV transmission - not nearly as much as drug users, gay men, and prostitutes (this might be a whole different story if prostitution were legal). It sounds discriminatory, but those really are the facts.
The real issue is how trustworthy HIV testing of blood is. Near 100% may seem good for the aggregate population, but what happens to the one person who unfairly obtains HIV from a blood transfusion? That could lead to a massive lawsuit, for the government and all organizations involved. It's a tough decision, and it wouldn't make sense for the FDA to actively pursue discrimination against homosexual men, drug users, and prostitutes - especially since these groups don't even benefit from DONATING their blood.
I in no way have formulated an opinion on this matter, by the way. I'm just setting up things for discussion.
Apparently, foreign blood is tainted, too. Pieter can't donate.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Apparently, foreign blood is tainted, too. Pieter can't donate.[/QUOTE]
Apparently I have a mad cow living inside of me.
Apparently I have a mad cow living inside of me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Apparently I have a mad cow living inside of me.[/QUOTE]
Eeek...hope you don't start foaming at the mouth one day!
Eeek...hope you don't start foaming at the mouth one day!
So Pieter can't donate bc he's not from the US originally or bc he has worn a kilt in the past?
The two times I've had the opportunity to donate blood I was turned down. Once bc I was on an antibiotic at the time for a kidney infection and the other they asked me if I hadn't eaten yet that day and I hadn't so they said I wasn't allowed to donate. I was like gee whiz, I'll be fine!! But they were not having it.
Since then I've never come across an opportunity to donate. I'm not sure what my opinion is on this either "ban." My first thoughts are how dare they discriminate. Just not right given today's technology and safeguards. I'm nieve sometimes though so take that in to consideration. It doesn't sound right to me the way it's presented in that article, sounds extremely discriminatory but I could probably convinced otherwise through another point of view. I don't know.
The two times I've had the opportunity to donate blood I was turned down. Once bc I was on an antibiotic at the time for a kidney infection and the other they asked me if I hadn't eaten yet that day and I hadn't so they said I wasn't allowed to donate. I was like gee whiz, I'll be fine!! But they were not having it.
Since then I've never come across an opportunity to donate. I'm not sure what my opinion is on this either "ban." My first thoughts are how dare they discriminate. Just not right given today's technology and safeguards. I'm nieve sometimes though so take that in to consideration. It doesn't sound right to me the way it's presented in that article, sounds extremely discriminatory but I could probably convinced otherwise through another point of view. I don't know.
It could be argued that mates of swinging spouses should be banned from donating blood. However, this sort of discrimination toward the heterosexual majority (whether or not it is in the interest of safety) will never happen due to the political repurcussions. Actually, because the predominant majorty of people are straight, it is probably more likely that more heterosexual spouses than homosexual partners would be infected their cheating mates. Afrer all, a "semi-reliable source" on QZ once mentioned that more heterosexuals practice anal sex than homosexuals.
Whether the interest of a slight improvement in safety (saving even one life?) could possibly justify discrimination is certainly debatable. In the USA climate of suing at the drop of a hat, perhaps this sort of discrimination can be "rationalized" to be politically correct.
In other words ...
I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. LOL
Whether the interest of a slight improvement in safety (saving even one life?) could possibly justify discrimination is certainly debatable. In the USA climate of suing at the drop of a hat, perhaps this sort of discrimination can be "rationalized" to be politically correct.
In other words ...
I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. LOL