Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. Unfortunately, the patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the health risk.

 

 

 

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork?

 

 

 

Something to think about.

 

 

 

Too much red tape. There's a heavy risk that even if the patient is given the risk, they have the legal right to sue the hospital if they contract HIV/AIDS.

The hell? Check their blood, damnit. They may not even carry frikkin HIV.

Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. Unfortunately, the patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the health risk.

 

 

 

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork?

 

 

 

Something to think about.

 

 

 

Too much red tape. There's a heavy risk that even if the patient is given the risk, they have the legal right to sue the hospital if they contract HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

You're probably right. I'm curious though (if anyone here knows the answer), do people sue if their kids get a genetic disease after being informed the risks/chances by the genetic counselors of a hospital? If not, Barihawk, do you think this would negate your point?

 

 

 

I don't mind that there's limitation on who can donate on pragmatic grounds (and no, I don't think this is really a case of discrimination), I'm just wondering if we could impliment something that would give more people a chance at life while knowing the downsides of doing so, just like a genetic counselor gives prospective parents the downsides of having kids based on their family pedigrees, etc.

The title and part of the story itself makes it seem as though medics are banning blood just because the donor is gay. thats not exactly the case. remember, LIVES are on the line here. I would think a person's sexuality is the last issue on anyone's mind when someone is willing to donate rare blood to save a life. Its because of gay sex that there is a ban. who knows the health risks? If it were me who needed blood, I wouldn't like to know that my donor may very well have had sex with another man and got some kind of disease I could get.

The hell? Check their blood, damnit. They may not even carry frikkin HIV.

 

 

 

HIV/AIDS remains dormat for 11-13 years before actually damaging your body. It is undetectable until then.

Warri0r:

 

 

 

All it takes is a $100 processing fee to start a lawsuit. You can bet your kiester that anyone can sue anyone for anything. The hospital can't deny a patient medical treatment because they refuse to sign a release.

Right. Sorry, but I want to see a link and OFFICIAL documentation that this is a United States law. Until then, I think there's a limit to even the stupidity of a man such as that. If this were to have been law, there'd be riots in Washington. No ifs, ands, or butt-holes about it. (no pun intended :wall: :wall: :anxious: )

Anyone up for a 'Gay Debate' Subforum?

Right. Sorry, but I want to see a link and OFFICIAL documentation that this is a United States law. Until then, I think there's a limit to even the stupidity of a man such as that. If this were to have been law, there'd be riots in Washington. No ifs, ands, or butt-holes about it. (no pun intended :wall: :wall: :anxious: )

 

 

 

[hide]You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

 

 

 

You are at risk for getting infected if you:

 

 

 

have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor

 

are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977

 

have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977

 

have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above

 

received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia

 

were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.

 

since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or

 

had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found. [/hide]

 

 

 

Also, from teh Food and Drug Administration website:

 

[hide] history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

 

 

 

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

 

 

 

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors. [/hide]

 

 

 

Source: FDA Page

It makes sense. Although it's not just gay men who have the HIV/AIDS virus, there's a higher percentage. Honestly, the number of gay men who have rare blood types probably isn't even high enough to justify risking taking blood from them. If they did allow them to donate and even one incident occurred in which a person received the virus from blood that was donated by a gay person, there would be major debates on the whole thing.

Please don't turn this into another discrimating thread.

 

 

 

Really, the worlds pretty much so messed up now its not even funny. Discuss as you like, but the end result is always going to be the same, and the infinite cycle of the human element and its "concerns" with discrimination will never end.

Blood type is confusing and transfusions...things can go wrong.

 

 

 

HIV is as you said a higher risk in gay men. That, if we're assuming you're correct (which I am, despite no evidence. I'm assuming everything you say is true) then it's too high of a risk anyway.

 

 

 

I believe that we should tell the person receiving the donation should be alerted to a gay possibility, and give them a choice. But I think it's better to die of some odd disease than from HIV.

 

 

 

Always, always there are precautions to check blood for HIV/AIDS, but I'm guessing that maybe the doctors couldn't take the risk, I mean, after all HIV doesn't immediately react in the system. Maybe there's a form of bias in these decisions, but keep in mind that it was the FDA, and they're damn more educated than any of us poor blokes.

 

 

 

And tryto, I believe you have provided all the evidence needed. The FDA is clearly correct in their choice; it's simply too damn risky to take in gay blood with those kind of numbers.

Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. Unfortunately, the patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the health risk.

 

 

 

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork?

 

 

 

Something to think about.

 

 

 

Too much red tape. There's a heavy risk that even if the patient is given the risk, they have the legal right to sue the hospital if they contract HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

You're probably right. I'm curious though (if anyone here knows the answer), do people sue if their kids get a genetic disease after being informed the risks/chances by the genetic counselors of a hospital? If not, Barihawk, do you think this would negate your point?

 

 

 

I don't mind that there's limitation on who can donate on pragmatic grounds (and no, I don't think this is really a case of discrimination), I'm just wondering if we could impliment something that would give more people a chance at life while knowing the downsides of doing so, just like a genetic counselor gives prospective parents the downsides of having kids based on their family pedigrees, etc.

 

 

 

I'm with Warrior, that we need a way..I'm pretty sure that the safest way today is to inform of the risks on paper, with eyewitnesses, make them sign to acknowledge the fact that they read the risks and accept them, then give them their option.

The hell? Check their blood, damnit. They may not even carry frikkin HIV.

 

 

 

As stated in above posts you can't tell if a person's infected with HIV for many years.

 

 

 

About the issue- I stand both ways. It's been stated that anal sex has a higher risk of transmitting STD's and HIV/AIDS, but if you think about it, there are straight couples that enjoy anal sex. So, I agree it's partially baised; but since there is a significantally increased risk with anal sex as I stated above, and gay couples have anal sex a lot more than the average straight couple, that's where I'll have to agree with the law.

its perfectly fair

 

 

 

if someone had some rare genetic illness that made thier blood more succeptable to become cancerous

 

 

 

would it be fair to bann their blood - Of course

 

 

 

its the same with gays

 

 

 

their blood has a higher potential to be dangerous

 

 

 

therefor its justified

 

 

 

Also i notice a LOT of gay pride threads on the off topic forum its kinda funny

Anyone up for a 'Gay Debate' Subforum?

 

 

 

Please.

Warri0r:

 

 

 

All it takes is a $100 processing fee to start a lawsuit. You can bet your kiester that anyone can sue anyone for anything. The hospital can't deny a patient medical treatment because they refuse to sign a release.

 

 

 

I suppose the obligation to treat people would be the difficulty (although, if I remember correctly, some teenager in Australia refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons after being attacked by a shark [not sure which religion] :? ).

 

 

 

But yeah, I can picture the scenario: kid in a car accident, looses blood, forced to accept possibly HIV infected blood, sues. It dosen't surprise me these days - even if the kid would have died, there'll still be someone who sues.

 

 

 

But I've gotta say, if I had the choice between certain death and a chance of HIV, you know, I'd personally be greatful. That's just me.

I believe it is the Christian association of Mormons who refuse blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses as a matter of fact.

 

 

 

2,000 posts FooK-A-Ji. :)

I believe it is the Christian association of Mormons who refuse blood transfusions.

 

Yep, now that you mention Mormons, I believe the shark attack boy was one.

Jehovah's Witnesses. :(

Jehovah's Witnesses. :(

 

 

 

Yeah, you're probably right. It happened a while ago so it's not fresh in my mind.

I'm sure the gay's are outraged that they can't donate blood...

 

 

 

If some guy told me that I can't have blood sucked out of my body from a needle because of my ethniticity, i'm sure i'd be devostated [/sarcasm]

I'm sure the gay's are outraged that they can't donate blood...

 

 

 

If some guy told me that I can't have blood sucked out of my body from a needle because of my ethniticity, i'm sure i'd be devostated [/sarcasm]

 

 

 

Lol ethniticity has nothing to do with this subject, fool :P

 

 

 

And some people, like myself and my father are blood donors to help others, seeing as my dad would be dead 12 years ago were it not for blood transfusions.

 

 

 

But thats just my point of view and you of course have your own. I don't want your blood anyway ... only for drinking :wink:

If I am unable to donate blood because I have a family history with diabetes, this law is perfectly justified.

 

 

 

People with prostitution or needle-based drug use can't give blood either (same reason as the Gay clause).

 

 

 

It makes sense, actually.

 

 

 

You're going to compare being gay to prostitution and needle based druga usage? :wall:

 

 

 

No? If you were educated on the subject, prostitution and drug use carry risk of HIV/AIDS. The same reason that this law prevents homosexuals from giving blood.

 

 

 

You have to realize (you probably were not alive at the time) that in the 1980's, the Western world was going NUTS over HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

I will give you that this law is probably outdated, but it made sense for it's time. It was not a law based on far-right values or made to "gay-bash."

 

 

 

I completely agree with Barihawk there. We can't judge history being right or wrong from where we sit now. We know anti-semmitism is wrong now but in a society 100s of years ago it would have been perfectly acceptable.

 

 

 

One of the reasons given for the plague that swept through Europe was that it was because Jewish people lived there and therefore must be burnt to be rid of the plague. :-s Although they had no real proof for Jews being burnt for the plague, Im sure at the time there must have been some sort of medical proof that linked homosexuality and HIV/AIDs so this law does make sense, although outdated it did make sense.

 

 

 

It's not prejudice, rather making sure that the majority don't end up like the minority :S. It's more about the risks for the person on the recieving end of the blood. Trying to minimalize the risk isn't prejudice, only fair to the person on the recieving end.