MacRumors 2011 Blood Drive

[Opspin]

Just donated

Donated blood, going to get new iMac with standing desk and 6 weeks of Nupo diet, hopefully this new computer will distract me from all the delicious food that my girlfriend will be eating. Everything's coming up Millhouse!


Donating blood by Opspin, on Flickr

 

[bikertwin]

Why would it be ironic? Giving blood is a selfless act and anything that helps increase stocks is a positive.

What next? A celebration of marriage by asking members to show their wedding photos?

Your GLBT members can't do that in most states/countries, either. You don't see the irony in this?

 

[Andeavor]

Why would it be ironic? Giving blood is a selfless act and anything that helps increase stocks is a positive.

I wasn't saying anything against donating blood, I commend that. I just pointed out that there aren't that many potential donors here to actively support that cause.

I can bake cookies, though, and if you give me a tenner I'll go buy some OJ on my way.

 

[kalsta]

I think what good donating blood does is bigger than your sexual orientation, or mine.

Surely it's not about sexual orientation but actual sexual activity, and whether that places you in the 'high risk' category. Some other commenters have been good enough to reference statistics on this.

Other commenters seem to think they're being victimised here by a bigoted political conspiracy. I confess, I know little about US politics or medicine, but here in Australia I was also required to fill out quite a lengthy form regarding questions of health, travel and sexual activity (both heterosexual and homosexual). Sure, we also have blood screening, but when we're dealing with matters of life and death what's the problem with a preliminary line of defence against contaminated blood?

Again, I would say to those who feel offended… Is it really about your desire to serve your community, or more about your personal pride? Giving blood, or really any kind of community service, should always be about the people you are serving. If you can't give blood, for whatever reason, rather than getting incensed about it, why not direct your charitable desires into other areas of need? There are virtually no limits to the altruistic opportunities for people willing to give of their time and energies, regardless of sexual orientation. Don't be a victim… and don't seek to be a hero. Just go out and make the world a slightly better place in whatever way you can!

I would have died if not for donated blood, so maybe I'm biased, I don't know.

We are fortunate now that blood is well screened. It wasn't always this way.

 

[mickbab]

I'll be going in tomorrow morning to give blood, conveniently my school has organised a Blood Drive at the same time as MacRumors! Hopefully all goes well and someone will benefit from what my organs have to offer.

 

[stridemat]

I wasn't saying anything against donating blood, I commend that. I just pointed out that there aren't that many potential donors here to actively support that cause.

Please can you clarify your statement about the lack of potential donors?

 

[ScooterPT]

I will be giving this week as well

 

[Jookbox]

If someone used my blood they would be stoned all day.

 

[Jeepfirez]

Not Eligible

I would donate but I am not eligible since I am in a committed relationship with my partner .

 

[chaoticbear]

Hopefully those who are not eligible, will be honest and will keep away.

I actually donated exactly once, as a gay virgin.

Arrgh! You cited the tamest statistic from the CDC article. Here are the others: 20% of gay men are HIV positive and 44% don't know it.

THAT is why the question is asked. As a future possible recipient of blood, I'm glad they ask it.

More than 8,000 self-identifying gay and bisexual men (or, as the researchers call them, MSM, for men who have sex with men) were tested by CDC workers in the 21 American cities with the highest infection rates. The gay population in Baltimore had the highest rates of HIV infection, at 38%, while Atlanta scored lowest, at 6%.

Emphasis mine, of course. It seems a bit disingenuous to claim statistics like that when the sampling bias is even stated in the article.

The issue here, of course, is that HIV doesn't take a lifetime to show up. Every other thing on that list has a timeframe associated with it. Even the least sensitive tests can detect any outliers by 6 months after exposure - newer tests are even more sensitive. A 6-month exclusion time after having M/M sex would be slightly more acceptable, rather than a lifetime ban. Asking specifically about risky sexual behavior might be even more appropriate, with appropriate exclusion periods. Believe it or not, monogamy is common in the gay community.

--chaoticbear, HIV+ sex worker extraordinaire.

PS - I work in a hospital. A pediatric hospital. In direct patient contact with your children.

 

[Andeavor]

Please can you clarify your statement about the lack of potential donors?

You already have a few members in this thread who said they're not eligible.

 

[yadmonkey]

You already have a few members in this thread who said they're not eligible.

A number of ineligible donors is not the same as a lack of eligible donors. That's basic logic.

 

[stridemat]

You already have a few members in this thread who said they're not eligible.

So you are forming your opinion on the few members who have posted here that are ineligible.

A number of ineligible donors is not the same as a lack of eligible donors. That's basic logic.

Exactly!

 

[Shaun.P]

I'll be going in tomorrow morning to give blood, conveniently my school has organised a Blood Drive at the same time as MacRumors! Hopefully all goes well and someone will benefit from what my organs have to offer.

I will be giving this week as well

Amazing! Make sure to post a picture in the Blood Drive thread and tell us what you donated.

All donations mentioned in that thread get added to the honour roll.

 

[AidenShaw]

Make the question fair

The question asked of heterosexuals =/= asked gay and bisexual men. The risk factor for straight people is risky sex, the risk factor asked for gay men is not risky sex, but sex at all - even once. Its not the same thing. If there was no bigotry behind the question it would be raised this way to all, no matter what orientation "have you had unprotected sex with more than one partner in the last 5 years, if yes have you been tested for HIV?"

Arguments that gay people shouldn't be allowed to give blood? Really? I give way to much credit to society sometimes. Equating homosexuality to prostitution or drug use is so incredibly ignorant.

This. About ten million times.

The irony of a forum with a very large gay and bisexual membership to ask for blood donations is beyond ridiculous.

Think this through, MacRumors, think this through.

So, the solution for the Red Cross is to ask "Are you hetersexual, bisexual, or homosexual? If yes, do not donate blood.".

That seems like a non-biased solution to me.

 

[someone28624]

Platelet donations take longer than blood donations (at least an hour longer in most cases). You can donate platelets much more often because your body regenerates them so quickly, in a matter of days instead of months. Some people feel temporarily light-headed after donating blood, which is why they insist that you rest and have a snack afterwards. That happens less often with platelet donations.

One thing I didn't know until recently: A lot of donation centers encourage platelet donation because platelets have a shorter shelf life than whole blood and supplies can easily run low. But if your blood type is O negative (you're a "universal donor") and you volunteer to donate platelets, they'll likely ask you to donate blood instead!

Where I work our blood center does double-donations. You can donate blood and platelets at the same time. I'm not eligible to donate platelets because I'm diabetic and they use an anticoagulant in the platelet donation that is dextrose based. We run out of platelets fairly commonly, but I've never seen us run out of blood.

 

[AidenShaw]

why mr has large gay/bi members?

However large, the size of my member has nothing to do with this.

The irony of a forum with a very large gay and bisexual membership to ask for blood donations is beyond ridiculous.

Think this through, MacRumors, think this through.

Perhaps MacRumours could encourage its "disenfranchised" members to show up for donations, and protest being prevented from donating. If the Red Cross workers in the field get a sense for the numbers of potential donors that are being turned away, maybe that will trickle up to the policy makers.

During the height of the AIDS crisis the motto "Silence=Death" was used by some of the protestors. Anytime it's "Silence=<NoEqualRights>", those disenfranchised and their supporters should make noise. Silence supports the status quo - speak up for change when the status quo is discriminatory.

The Red Cross policy is wrong, and not scientifically or socially defensible.

 

[Fuzzy14]

I missed the last blood drive as I was on medication.
Gave a few times last year.
Now I'm out the game for a year due to a recent piercing
But well done to all those who take part.

 

[Ravich]

It's not the Red Cross. It's the FDA. Last time the policy went up for review in 2006 or so, it was voted 7 against 6 to stay in place.


And for anyone wondering, the wording is something along the lines of "if you are a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1977, or if you are a woman who has had sexual contact with a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1997, you are prohibited from donating blood."


I think a basic level of intelligence indicates how wrong and prejudiced this is.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm

According to statistics, black men are more than 6 times more likely than white men to become infected with HIV, but you sure as hell dont see people supporting banning black people from donating blood. Why? Simply because it is more socially acceptable to be homophobic than it is to be racist.



Edit: I just wanted to make this clear: there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for blood donations, regardless of who may or may not be present. Donating blood saves lives. There is a problematic policy in place in the US and other countries at the moment, but that never has and never will make asking for people to donate blood problematic in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Socratic]

It's not the Red Cross. It's the FDA. Last time the policy went up for review in 2006 or so, it was voted 7 against 6 to stay in place.


And for anyone wondering, the wording is something along the lines of "if you are a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1977, or if you are a woman who has had sexual contact with a man who has had sexual contact with another man, even once, since 1997, you are prohibited from donating blood."


I think a basic level of intelligence indicates how wrong and prejudiced this is.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm

According to statistics, black men are more than 6 times more likely than white men to become infected with HIV, but you sure as hell dont see people supporting banning black people from donating blood. Why? Simply because it is more socially acceptable to be homophobic than it is to be racist.



Edit: I just wanted to make this clear: there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for blood donations, regardless of who may or may not be present. Donating blood saves lives. There is a problematic policy in place in the US and other countries at the moment, but that never has and never will make asking for people to donate blood problematic in any way, shape, or form.

I should clarify then in light of my previous comments that I am in the UK, where the wording is very different.

 

[Ravich]

On that note, claiming "male to male" sex as higher risk is erroneous. You are referring to anal sex. Not "gay sex."

 

[AidenShaw]

well put

Why? Simply because it is more socially acceptable to be homophobic than it is to be racist.

... working towards a day when both are unacceptable.

 

[jamieb63]

Platelet donations take longer than blood donations (at least an hour longer in most cases). You can donate platelets much more often because your body regenerates them so quickly, in a matter of days instead of months. Some people feel temporarily light-headed after donating blood, which is why they insist that you rest and have a snack afterwards. That happens less often with platelet donations.

One thing I didn't know until recently: A lot of donation centers encourage platelet donation because platelets have a shorter shelf life than whole blood and supplies can easily run low. But if your blood type is O negative (you're a "universal donor") and you volunteer to donate platelets, they'll likely ask you to donate blood instead!

A Whole BLood Donation will take an average of 5-10 minutes once you're in the phlebotomy chair.... An automated RBC (double red cell) takes approximately 25 minutes in the phlebotomy chair - and a Platelet donation can vary quite a bit... dependent on your body mass, pre-platelet count, etc... average probably about 60 minutes.... In automated procedures, donors get saline back during the procedures, which is why the donors feel better vs. whole blood donors who don't receive any return saline....

Red Blood Cells have a usual shelf life of 42 days - Platelets have a shelf life of 5 days... therefore, the needs are very different - All are extremely important! so ....wherever you fall in the spectrum, keep coming back!

 

[neko girl]

Is it really about your desire to serve your community, or more about your personal pride?

The great thing about doing something good, is that it is OK to do it for any reason that makes you happy (even credit on a MacRumors thread) because at the end of the day it benefits people.

If I was dying, I wouldn't care if someone gave me blood because their MacRumor buddies would like them more. They saved my life. Why is it so bad they did it for one reason or another?

If people would do more good things because of threads on MacRumors, how cool would that be?

 

[Doctor Q]

Are there any celebrities who promote blood donation or call attention to it by publicizing their own donations? None come to mind.