Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unfortunately, a petition won't be nearly as effective as cutting off the blood supply.

Nothing will change the policy faster than those deemed "healthy" refusing to donate.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm wanting to do something good for man kind, not kill people to later help more.
 
I would except I got bitten by a psychotic patient back in October so I have to defer for a year.
 
As a physician, I can't stress enough how important it is for people to donate blood. Blood is used for many patients, not just those who lost blood in trauma or surgery.

During my intern year, I prescribed several units of blood, platelets, and FFP every day on the hematology/oncology service. The amount of good blood can do is amazing.

Oh, and please don't take offense at the questions they ask you before donating blood. The point of the questions is to reduce transmission of disease...while all blood is tested for many diseases, no test is perfect. If there were enough celibate nuns on the planet, no man would give blood!
 
Oh come on, sexually active anyone is at risk for HIV.

But some groups are more at risk than others.

Do you support ending the ban on injection drug users giving blood?

As for the "if you, a male, have had sex with a male, even once" question - one has to wonder just how long they figure the HIV virus can lie dormant in a body. Thirty-five plus years seems like a long time to hold a rapidly-changing retrovirus like HIV (which basically outadapts and outlasts a human body, from my understanding) at bay.

On average, without HAART, the latent period was ~10 years.
Now with HAART, we can keep you HIV+ and alive with no known upper limit.

Unfortunately, a petition won't be nearly as effective as cutting off the blood supply.

Nothing will change the policy faster than those deemed "healthy" refusing to donate.

My post was a lament, not a call to action. I can understand how it could be interpreted as the latter, though. I apologize for the ambiguity.

Unfortunately, society and organizations rarely "right wrongs" simply because they see discrimination and decide to fix it. It usually takes some action to force the issue, and make it apparent that the organization needs to right the wrong in order to meet its goals.

Maybe instead of getting the breeders to boycott blood drives, we should encourage the rest of us to flood them. Answer the questions honestly, and leave when you're rejected. If the blood drives report to the home office that 10%/20%/30% of the volunteers are rejected due to the MMLTM clause, then perhaps things will change sooner.

This entirely ignores that many organizations, including the Red Cross, are pushing for the deferral to be changed. See here: http://www.aabb.org/pressroom/statements/Pages/statement061510.aspx
 
Thought!

So let me see if I understand. Lev 3:17 clearly states that we must stay away from blood "indefinitely" along with Deut 12:16 and Acts 15:19, 20 and 29. Therefore, instead of putting faith in Jehovah's ability to save (after all, HE is our creator) we decide to take life in our own hands and do what's pleasing to us? Question? And I ask this question with great humility and respect and honor to anyone who answers. If your Mom was sick, the doctor says she needs blood but Jehovah comes to you and say "do not give her any blood." Will you trust in His ability to eventually resurrect her or would you disobey Him and give her the blood anyway?

----------

So let me see if I understand. Lev 3:17 clearly states that we must stay away from blood "indefinitely" along with Deut 12:16 and Acts 15:19, 20 and 29. Therefore, instead of putting faith in Jehovah's ability to save (after all, HE is our creator) we decide to take life in our own hands and do what's pleasing to us? Question? And I ask this question with great humility and respect and honor to anyone who answers. If your Mom was sick, the doctor says she needs blood but Jehovah comes to you and say "do not give her any blood." Will you trust in His ability to eventually resurrect her or would you disobey Him and give her the blood anyway? And I'm hiding under my religion? No, I'm no God therefore I've decided to wait on a God, the true God.
 
So let me see if I understand. Lev 3:17 clearly states that we must stay away from blood "indefinitely" along with Deut 12:16 and Acts 15:19, 20 and 29. Therefore, instead of putting faith in Jehovah's ability to save (after all, HE is our creator) we decide to take life in our own hands and do what's pleasing to us? Question? And I ask this question with great humility and respect and honor to anyone who answers. If your Mom was sick, the doctor says she needs blood but Jehovah comes to you and say "do not give her any blood." Will you trust in His ability to eventually resurrect her or would you disobey Him and give her the blood anyway?

----------

So let me see if I understand. Lev 3:17 clearly states that we must stay away from blood "indefinitely" along with Deut 12:16 and Acts 15:19, 20 and 29. Therefore, instead of putting faith in Jehovah's ability to save (after all, HE is our creator) we decide to take life in our own hands and do what's pleasing to us? Question? And I ask this question with great humility and respect and honor to anyone who answers. If your Mom was sick, the doctor says she needs blood but Jehovah comes to you and say "do not give her any blood." Will you trust in His ability to eventually resurrect her or would you disobey Him and give her the blood anyway? And I'm hiding under my religion? No, I'm no God therefore I've decided to wait on a God, the true God.

Who wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

Was it digitally signed so that you can verify that it is the actual work of the authors?

And, since the original probably wasn't written in English, can you verify that the translation is true to the original?
 
Sometimes gears grinds slowly...

Nice, but in a few weeks that web page (where the AABB stands for a change in the requirement) will be two years old.

Has anything changed in the last two years?

No.

  1. The page is still up. That counts for something, especially since it's been their stand on the gay blood ban for over fifteen years.
  2. There is some movement towards what you want. It may not be much (and much too slow, admittedly), but the gears seem to be grinding:
    https://www.federalregister.gov/art...ional-study-to-assess-alternative-blood-donor

And finally: Your cry for a boycott IS a call for action, NOT a "lament." Especially since you've made the point of trumpeting your undying disdain towards everything related to blood donations, from the system to the companies that gather the blood to the donors themselves.
 
Gave Blood!

Gave blood yesterday! I'm A+
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1881.JPG
    IMG_1881.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 105
Damn, I donated in April. Can't be involved this year.

BTW I'm of the opinion that there is nothing that isn't testable that stops gay men donating. It's discrimination based on outdated opinion.
 
Last edited:
mr_blood_drive_2012.jpg


May is over so the MacRumors 2012 Blood Drive has ended, but the need for blood and platelets continues. We choose one month to call attention to donations, but there are people in need every day of the year.

Thank you to all other blood, platelet, and plasma donors, those who have made arrangements to donate their organs, and those who have joined their country's bone marrow registry.

Congratulations to the 36 donors who collectively made 38 blood and platelet donations and let us know during the month of our Blood Drive. Collectively they donated 51 units of life-saving blood and platelets. We know there are many anonymous donors in our community as well.

Day-by-day results of the Blood Drive are posted here and a summary list of donors here.

If you are a regular donor, please continue to look for opportunities to donate. If you are an eligible donor who hasn't donated before, consider making your first donation and saving a life. If you aren't eligible to donate, please support and encourage those who can. You are welcome to save, share, or help us maintain our information pages:
 
Last edited:
Every year it's the same damn thing. No gays allowed. MacRumors has a huge gay population. Nice way to make your members feel bad about themselves.

Why don't you have a dual drive: blood drive and (something else) so that all your gay members can feel like we're contributing, too? And let us report/take photos of how we're contributing (money, food, whatever). So it's all-inclusive.

Telling us to recruit straight friends/family/coworkers to give blood is like asking us to recruit straight friends/family/coworkers to get married--we can't do that either; and recruiting people doesn't make us feel any better.
 
Every year it's the same damn thing. No gays allowed. MacRumors has a huge gay population. Nice way to make your members feel bad about themselves.

Why don't you have a dual drive: blood drive and (something else) so that all your gay members can feel like we're contributing, too? And let us report/take photos of how we're contributing (money, food, whatever). So it's all-inclusive.

Telling us to recruit straight friends/family/coworkers to give blood is like asking us to recruit straight friends/family/coworkers to get married--we can't do that either; and recruiting people doesn't make us feel any better.

You shouldn't feel bad about yourself. You should feel good that you belong to a group of people who want to help those in need, especially with something so direly needed- blood. Your last paragraph sounds like many people in the Facebook iOS6 integration thread - "I don't have/ hate Facebook, so this is a stupid idea!" and "I don't use this feature so no one should have it!"

If you want homosexuals to have the ability[\I] to donate blood then contact your local representatives and state governor. Don't take your anger out on people trying to do good. I don't know the personal and emotional struggles that a homosexual faces in this cruel would we live in but I can guess- it sucks.

[possibly controversial statement] IMHO Your paticipation in this may be hindered only by what you tell the donation center. They don't need to know your committed relationship buttsex was with a man. [/possibly controversial statement].

But yes, it would be nice to have other donation and/or community benifiting drive that we, members of the MacRumor forums can participate in.
 
bikertwin said:
Why don't you have a dual drive: blood drive and (something else)
We just did. We expanded our Blood Drive this year to include two more good causes: organ donation and bone marrow donation. Even if you aren't eligible to donate blood you can sign up to donate your organs. If you expect to have children you can plan to donate their umbilical cord blood to the national bone marrow registry whether or not you can join the registry yourself. I hope you'd feel good about doing these things rather than resentful about what you can't do. It's too bad that you couldn't participate in all aspects of this community effort but if you have the instinct to help people then I think you'll find many ways to do just that.

We hesitate to make this a fundraising drive, which would give more kudos to the people with more ability to donate, but if there are ways to expand the scope of this drive without diluting our message, it's worth discussing them.
 
Great cause, and a great place to remind people to share their blood with those who need it just as much to survive. Be careful to be perfectly healthy and strong when giving blood. My first and last nervous breakdown happened after giving blood at a very stressful stage of my life - big mistake...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.