Gay Blood donating rights?

[mike c]

you are all wrong. why be so confrontational?

I say ... let them give blood.

the blood banks have two options available.

1) they can dump the blood as soon as those "guys" leave.
2) make sure to get a minimum of 5-6 quarts.

 

[highfihoney]

you are all wrong. why be so confrontational?

I say ... let them give blood.

the blood banks have two options available.

1) they can dump the blood as soon as those "guys" leave.
2) make sure to get a minimum of 5-6 quarts.

 

[zhimbo]

you are all wrong. why be so confrontational?

I say ... let them give blood.

the blood banks have two options available.

1) they can dump the blood as soon as those "guys" leave.
2) make sure to get a minimum of 5-6 quarts.

Ah. A joke about killing TEH GAYZ. Funny?

 

[Audioholics]

3) Make zhimbo test all the donated blood to see if it's contaminated

Oh no, a joke about killing zhimbo?!?! Funny?

 

[zhimbo]

It's OK. Zhimbo is not a targeted minority. I've never been killed just because I'm Zhimbo, for example.

Your joke could also have had a reasonable point (although in this case it doesn't because I support the ban), in which case it would be both meaningful and even a little funny.

Systematic slaughter of gays by draining their blood?...I just don't get the "ha ha".

 

[mike c]

it's a joke. ha ha

sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't.

or maybe jokes are half meant for you?

 

[mtrycrafts]

"unfortunately common sense is not that common any more". .

I would be interested in knowing when it was common? Really.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Just an fyi, a friend works in the department of health in NYC, and I can tell you that just statistically, in NYC the higher groups at risk are black and hispanics heterosexuals, it used to be homosexuality from the 80's but not anymore.

I suppose then, they should be also banned as a group in the context of the original post. When will that happen? After all, what is good for one must be good for the other, right

 

[mtrycrafts]

I wouldnt expect them to be the highest current risk group..... because they're told THEY CANNOT DONATE.

Why not? If they were not the highest risk group, they would not be banned anymore, right? Just because they are banned, then it must be assumed that they still are. Unless, once a group is banned, there is no redemption and rescinding of the ban?

Besides, the blood is tested and the Red Cross states that
The current version, called the nucleic acid test, reveals the virus itself, and is considered extremely reliable.

So, why is the ban still in place?

 

[mtrycrafts]

.........and sarcasm

But of course, that too. Part and parcel to discussions
What would it be without it?

 

[mtrycrafts]

This whole thing hinges onthe assumption that we know all there is to know about AIDS and have 100% fool-proof tests to detect AIDS.

Personally, I doubt either of these are true.

In such case, I prefer that they err on the side of caution and contiue to exclude the two groups that have the highest incidence of AIDS (gays and IV drug users), thereby increasing the odds of getting pure blood. By not continuing to do so, you increase the odds of people getting it.

To use civil rights as a bludgeon to increase the risk of people conracting AIDS is simply wrong and I hope the legal system sees this.

And, this is not to be misconstrued as an indictment of either lifestyle. It's simply a pragmatic analysis of the situation.

Yep, it is a health issue and that is all it should be, period.
There is not much in life that is 100% foolproof, is there, except death.
If the science was not there, the Red Cross would not ask for rescinding the old rule
The current version, called the nucleic acid test, reveals the virus itself, and is considered extremely reliable.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

If the science was not there, the Red Cross would not ask for rescinding the old rule
[/b]

The RC does it's disaster assistance and blood drive thing and all that, but if you follow politics....... that organization also has a strong international political component and they are a very liberal outspoken organization. Based on that alone, I'd expect them to fight for gays special treatment.

The RC speaks out on many issues.....and they're always faaaar to the left. As a fairly recent example...........it was especially obvious during the most recent middle east crisis between the Hezbo's and Israel. Everything they said was anti- Israel.........and they served as Hezbo's lapdogs(from Lebanon fame). I can give many examples, but that's just one..

Seeing leftists ask for special treatment of gays at the expense of the safety of the general public....... that's a given. If you earn your living in politics and follow that sort of spin like I do... you'd see the extent to which that organization is political in an obvious way.

If you're a conservative like me and you read the constant press releases that are political in nature by the RC.... they will make you vomit. So much so, that I will never donate money to them. They're like the ACLU, only the ACLU uses the courts as it's blood bank.

 

[billy p]

Isn't all blood tested, even after you donated(at least to my knowledge it is here!). So why does this really matter or it's a moral issue with some? Well now, I understand the point of this argument!!

Quote from a Canadian Hemophilia Society article.
By their very nature blood donor screening and deferral criteria are discriminatory; however, they are reasonably justifiable where they provide increased protection to public health. While the risk of HIV transmission through the transfusion of blood and blood products has been reduced significantly, the transmission of blood-borne pathogens including HIV remains significant among men who have sex with another man. In the absence of perfect testing, donor screening, including the existing MSM deferral, remains an essential component of blood safety.

March 31, 2006

 

[mtrycrafts]

The RC does it's disaster assistance and blood drive thing and all that, but if you follow politics....... that organization also has a strong international political component and they are a very liberal outspoken organization. Based on that alone, I'd expect them to fight for gays special treatment.

The RC speaks out on many issues.....and they're always faaaar to the left. As a fairly recent example...........it was especially obvious during the most recent middle east crisis between the Hezbo's and Israel. Everything they said was anti- Israel.........and they served as Hezbo's lapdogs(from Lebanon fame). I can give many examples, but that's just one..

Seeing leftists ask for special treatment of gays at the expense of the safety of the general public....... that's a given. If you earn your living in politics and follow that sort of spin like I do... you'd see the extent to which that organization is political in an obvious way.

If you're a conservative like me and you read the constant press releases that are political in nature by the RC.... they will make you vomit. So much so, that I will never donate money to them. They're like the ACLU, only the ACLU uses the courts as it's blood bank.

You keep stating 'special treatment.' How so? What special treatment would they be getting?
Would the blood of heterosexuals be tested for HIV and used if not detected? If so, then the gays are discriminated against just because of their orientation and eliminating this is not special treatment but same treatment, no?
Perhaps we should just not do any blood donation, then no one would be exposed to any disease transmission, including hepatitis?

 

[billy p]

Mtry

However, a male who answers yes to the question of same sex relations is 263x's higher to be HIV infected, then a male who answers no.

Here's the article I've posted some of my answers from: http://www.hemophilia.ca/en/1.2.2.php

 

[darien87]

Gays are currently banned from giving blood Granted.....some gays probably fib and give blood anyway.

The discussion here is whether or not the ban should be lifted. I wouldnt expect them to be the highest current risk group..... because they're told THEY CANNOT DONATE.

You still didn't answer the question. How is that you figure that gays are the "Motherload" of risk groups?

 

[mike c]

as im sure testing costs money (and time) ... i'm thinking the blood banks don't want to spend the money testing blood that are at a higher risk of being worthless.

it's all about limited funds and PROBABILITY.

 

[highfihoney]

as im sure testing costs money (and time) ... i'm thinking the blood banks don't want to spend the money testing blood that are at a higher risk of being worthless.

it's all about limited funds and PROBABILITY.

I always thought that ALL blood was tested before it was stored,i hope so anyways.

 

[mike c]

yes, all blood is tested. (i hope so)

but imagine this ... let's say you and me were to test for potable water, free of all bacteria.

you test from different wells, lakes and rivers ...

then comes water samples from a well that we have had previous tests that had about 50% chance of the presence of bacteria. unless we had a shortage of water samples to test, why test from that well when we know 50% of our efforts will go to waste?

 

[zildjian]

No matter who the donor is, all blood receives the exact same testing.