Gay Blood donating rights?

[Buckeye_Nut]

http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories06/march/0317062.htm

Apparently, there is a new and ever growing movement by the gay community to restore blood giving rights to gay men. If you google 'gay blood' or something similar, you'll find a ton of stories about how they're pressing to restore blood donation rights. In a few years, I wouldnt be surprised of the ACLU brings this Gay blood donation rights cause to US courts so that that we may all be allowed to receive these 'high risk group' blood transfusions.

There are many high risk factors that ban people from giving blood, and this is only one of many that are enforced for obvious reasons......keeping transfusions as safe as humanly possible.

Even so, people still receive bad blood every year because we're at the mercy of human error in the screening process. Should gay rights supersede safety by allowing the 'mutherload' of all high risk groups to donate blood?


A penny for your thoughts?

 

[Seth=L]

Even though I do not agree with homosexuality I would say there wouldn't be a problem with it so long as they are clean (all blood is tested anyway, so it is rather irrelevant what the donor's sexual orientation might be.)

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Even though I do not agree with homosexuality I would say there wouldn't be a problem with it so long as they are clean (all blood is tested anyway, so it is rather irrelevant what the donor's sexual orientation might be.)

How I or anyone feels about gays isn't the point I was trying to make. My point is there are many 'high risk' groups that are eliminated from giving blood for many various reasons. Many of these risk groups have clean blood today, but because of a past condition, activity, or exposure in years past....they're banned from giving blood today.

With that said.......with this being the 'motherload' risk group for HIV/AIDS, you think gays should receive special treatment in the name of gay rights?

That is what this is about........... special treatment.

PS.... I wouldn't want the ban lifted on "former" hepatitis patients giving blood either. What this is about is special treatment given to a risk group that rightfully......shouldnt get it. In the name of providing the safest blood humanly possible, even with the screening processes, bad blood still gets through. This is one high risk group I wouldnt want slipping through undetected to my family because of a clerical error or oversight.

 

[Audioholics]

I'll support it as soon as the same group endorses the "bring back heroin users blood donation rights" campaign I'm forming this week...

Seriously, do we have to make blood donation a constitutional right now? Is this really an issue people need to discuss? Where has common sense gone in America?

CSI isn't real - blood screening tests aren't 100% and HIV isn't detectable immediately.

 

[Mort Corey]

Where has common sense gone in America?

It left a while ago....think it was on the last train to Clarksville.(since IIRC, AIDS originated in lower forms of primates)

Mort

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I'll support it as soon as the same group endorses the "bring back heroin users blood donation rights" campaign I'm forming this week...

Seriously, do we have to make blood donation a constitutional right now? Is this really an issue people need to discuss? Where has common sense gone in America?

Clint.... Nicely put.

Unfortunately, all common sense seems to have exited stage left.

 

[zhimbo]

That is what this is about........... special treatment.

.

Errr...I was actually with you until this: "special treatment". It really is about QUITE the opposite.

It's about the REMOVAL of special treatment. Treating gays like non-gays is NOT "special treatment".

Honestly, if the statistical risk justifies it, I'm all for keeping the current special treatment in place, and not removing the current special treatment.

But let's call it what it is: special restrictions on gays. It's a justifiable point; don't weaken it by "newspeaking" it.

 

[Seth=L]

Treating people as people is what they should be doing. Any person that wants to be a donor should have the right to do so if they are tested (as all blood is) and found to be clean.

I guess I must have not been clear in my previous post, being GAY(or being any other "group" of people) should have no bearing on whether someone can be a donor or not.

 

[markw]

It's a health issue, not a rights issue.

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.

 

[darien87]

With that said.......with this being the 'motherload' risk group for HIV/AIDS, you think gays should receive special treatment in the name of gay rights?

Just wondering what your basis is for that statement?

 

[NapaDRB]

Clint,
In a conversation I was having with my father on a different subject he replied to a statement I made with "unfortunately common sense is not that common any more". I think that applies to a lot of the world nowadays.

 

[superstar]

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.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Just wondering what your basis is for that statement?

As Clint comically suggested.....

Should the gay HIV/AIDS 'risk group' be given special treatment over the intravenous drug user 'risk group'? Do you also think it's unfair to discriminate against heroin addict junkies & barring them from the possibility of giving blood?

Multiple high risk groups are barred for very good reasons.... and that is to minimize the possibility of tainted blood from slipping undetected through the system.

To suggest otherwise is insane......

It's as if you deny gays are a major HIV/AIDS risk as it relates to blood transfusions....

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

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.

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.

 

[highfihoney]

Im all for em donating blood as long as it's for each other.

I'd be willing to bet that the only people *****ing about not being allowed to give blood are the ones who are selling their blood at blood banks.

 

[markw]

Interesting observation.

I'd be willing to bet that the only people *****ing about not being allowed to give blood are the ones who are selling their blood at blood banks.

This isn't "donating", it's "selling", and that puts this discussion in an entitrely different light. I don't think any organization can be "forced" to accept any "donations" it chooses to not accept, particularly if they are paying for it.

I believe a clarification is needed.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Im all for em donating blood as long as it's for each other.

Uh oh....

The standard liberal response to your sanity & common sense is to accuse you of being a homophobe......

Hifi....how dare you oppose the rights of one of the USA's major carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus from donating blood!!



Let me guess..... you're also opposed to heroin addicts giving blood?
Oooh...the outrage!!

 

[Seth=L]

Uh oh....

The standard liberal response to your sanity & common sense is to accuse you of being a homophobe......

Hifi....how dare you oppose the rights of one of the USA's major carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus from donating blood!!



Let me guess..... you're also opposed to heroin addicts giving blood?
Oooh...the outrage!!

I do believe you started this topic.

Did you think this topic wouldn't spark some argument?

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Did you think this topic wouldn't spark some argument?

.........and sarcasm

 

[highfihoney]

Uh oh....

The standard liberal response to your sanity & common sense is to accuse you of being a homophobe......

Let me guess..... you're also opposed to heroin addicts giving blood?
Oooh...the outrage!!

First off I am a homophobe,and with good reason,i spent 2 years in prison watchin them sick fools kissin,huggin & clipping each others toe nails I dont wish them any harm but ive had enough of that scene to last a lifetime.

Im not against junkies giving blood either,the dope feinds & homo's can swap each others blood in times of crisis