Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Moyank24, Dec 23, 2014.
F.D.A. Lifting Ban on Gay Blood Donors
So they'll only take the blood of celibate gay men...
...and all the STD riddled straight people. They have rights too.
Actually I really don't see this as progress at all in any way shape or form. And the most ridiculous part is how do they expect to be able to easily identify a gay man? This is entirely unenforceable and discriminatory.
I agree that it shouldn't be banned outright but given the increased risk category of the donor, recipients should at least be informed about the source of the blood and allowed to make the decision themselves.
I would imagine hospitals would also want to protect themselves from any legal liability should a patient contract HIV from a blood transfusion that originated from a gay donor.
They test all the blood anyway. Do you really think they would just take blood from some random person and pump it into another random person without testing?
I assume they are expecting people to tell the truth. I wonder how many actually do.
Last time I donated they asked if I had been with a prostitute in the last 12 months (I can't remember the exact time period). I asked the woman when I finished answering all the questions if people say yes to that question. She said you'd be shocked about what people admitted to.
But it was done on a computer, and not asked by a human, so maybe people are more truthful?
I think the point is that there are increased risks with many different types of donors. Not just gay men, yet they are being singled out.
If you think that informing a transfusion recipient of the sexual orientation of the donor would shift liability away from the hospital (or really do anything other than perpetuate a stigma), you're seriously fooling yourself.
What Happens to Donated Blood?
'Excuse me Mr Anderson, I'm Dr. Smith. Sorry to inform you but we accidentally injected you with gay blood. You're now gay.'
'No Doctor, you're stupid'.
Agreed but testing isn't foolproof. I don't know the statistics but both false negatives and false positives are possible.
What are the exact protocols for the screening of donor blood? I doubt that they are performing more than one test on donor blood.
I don't think gay people are being single out just blood from people in higher risk categories which would include gay men and IV drug users. As I understand it, neither can donate blood.
Do you just make things up as you write them?
Here, this is easy to read.
Before this announcement, any man who had sex with another man since 1977, even if it was only one time in college, couldn't give blood. Ever.
How is that not discriminatory?
I do agree that it makes no sense for the 12 month limit either. You're just stigmatizing an entire group of people for reasons that go against what we actually know. Especially with the amount of testing they do on the blood.
Thank you for your rude response and the link which neither answer my original question. But let me clarify my original question, how many times is donor blood tested for HIV?
I didn't say that it wasn't discriminatory. I just refuted that only gays were being singled out.
Who else is being singled out?
Anyone who is in the highest risk categories for contracting HIV, specifically gay men and IV drug users. I'm as much against discrimination as the next person but public safety has to trump political correctness.
You seem to think being gay somehow makes you a higher risk.
Yes but ignorance can't trump human equality. What's the likelihood of a straight person having infected blood? What's the likelihood of gay men having infected blood? Please show us the stats.
A ban, whether it's one year or lifetime, stigmatizes an entire group of people, especially when most aren't any riskier than anyone else in the population. Ask the same questions, do the same testing...
There's no question that gay men represent the highest number of HIV cases, but blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately effected as well. Why not an all out ban on entire races?
Wow, this conversation just became very unproductive. You're not attacking me but rather the medical community. I suggest you familiarize yourselves with the statistics on HIV.
Agreed, but I'm not really trying to debate the morality of screening donor blood or who's the most impacted by HIV.
My only concern is that we have the proper mechanisms in place to minimize the risk of transmission of HIV through donor blood. If we're going to introduce more risk into the process by incorporating blood from donors in higher risk categories, we need to make sure that we are more aggressively screening the blood and that would mean running the blood through more than just a single HIV test.
I would suggest that being gay is not the covariate about which you should be concerned but rather specific behaviors: promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc. To use sexual orientation as a filter serves to perpetuate an old social bias without much benefit.
Well you can take your complaints up with God. A man's anus was never designed for sex and is therefore more susceptible to tearing during sex which then facilitates the transmission of HIV to the recipient.
Good luck taking up anything with a mythical being.
Taking into consideration the potential for diseases is important. I don't actually see how you could approve the use of donated blood without rigorous testing, unless the blood banks are incredibly low.
Even in apparently committed relationships people can have affairs, and the person giving blood doesn't necessarily know about them.
They don't identify gay men. They ask men if they've ever had sex with another man since a certain date.
I guess because it applies to all men? I mean regardless of whether the guy self-identifies as straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever.
Straight men have anal sex with women too.
Like someone already mentioned, they test the blood first. Nothing is fool proof especially when you factor human error, but I highly doubt gays giving blood will increase tainted blood cases.