Federal ban on gay men's blood donation to be reconsidered

For those who say that gay men should be banned from giving blood because of the risk factor:

To date, over 225,000 African Americans have died of AIDS - nearly 40% of total deaths - and of the more than 1 million people living with HIV in the United States of America today, around half are black. And yet, as a racial group, African Americans represent just 13% of the US population. The estimated lifetime risk of becoming infected with HIV is 1 in 16 for black males, and 1 in 30 for black females, a far higher risk than for white males (1 in 104) and white females (1 in 588).1 In Washington D.C, which has the nation’s highest district HIV prevalence (3%), 76 % of those infected are African American

www.avert.org...

Can you please tell me why you aren't calling for blacks to be banned too?

Originally posted by Violater1
Then read the links I have provided.

I have.

www.nature.com...

Not a single word about saliva.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Not a single word about saliva.

www.jimmunol.org...

Not a single word about saliva.

jada.ada.org...

During dental procedures, saliva will predictably be contaminated with blood.12,13 If blood is not visible, however, it is likely that only very small quantities of blood are present, and the risk for transmission of hepatitis B virus, or HBV; hepatitis C virus, or HCV; and HIV is extremely small.4 Despite this small risk of transmission, a qualified health care professional should evaluate any occupational exposure to saliva, regardless of the presence of visible blood.

Finally, something about saliva. But, wait. It's not the saliva itself but the BLOOD.

Occasionally I'm asked about whether HIV is present in an HIV-positive person's saliva, and whether it carries a risk of transmission.

The short answer is that saliva virtually never carries any infectious HIV at all.

www.mcld.co.uk...

If you had, you would have pointed out something very relevant.

What...something that I already know. That out of all your links the word "saliva" is used twice in one of them?

But you have not. Obvious to me, you have not read my links. So give it shot.
Read my links.

It's obvious to me you are being a misinformationist.

Again. Please site something that says that saliva can cause infection.

I await your rebutal telling me that I didn't read them again.

Originally posted by Nutter
For those who say that gay men should be banned from giving blood because of the risk factor:

To date, over 225,000 African Americans have died of AIDS - nearly 40% of total deaths - and of the more than 1 million people living with HIV in the United States of America today, around half are black. And yet, as a racial group, African Americans represent just 13% of the US population. The estimated lifetime risk of becoming infected with HIV is 1 in 16 for black males, and 1 in 30 for black females, a far higher risk than for white males (1 in 104) and white females (1 in 588).1 In Washington D.C, which has the nation’s highest district HIV prevalence (3%), 76 % of those infected are African American

www.avert.org...

Can you please tell me why you aren't calling for blacks to be banned too?

If we were not so PC and i was not afraid of being called a 'racist' and being banned by the moderaters i would advocate such a position.

Its simple.....if you have a high risk...you get banned.

Its like insurance....men get in more accidents so we have to pay more for it.

Is that not discrimination?

IM TIRED OF ALL THIS PC CRAP!!

death to politicle correctness!!!

quit worring about hurting other peoples feelings!!

reply to post by tauempire


I agree. And that's why I bring it up.

It's un-PC to discriminate against a large segment that has a high risk (blacks and hispanics).

But, it's A-OK to discrimate another large segment because of the same exact thing (gay men).

Thanks for furthering my point that it is still A-OK to discriminate against gay people in the US.

As far as the "risk" when talking about insurance. At least they don't differentiate between a black man, white man, gay man. They assume that it's a man so there is a risk.

Shouldn't the same be done for the blood supply? If you ban one segment for being at a higher risk then they need to ban ALL higher risk people. Especially blacks with over 50% of HIV in this country.

Or is the risk worth it because they aren't "gay"?

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by tauempire

 

I agree. And that's why I bring it up.

It's un-PC to discriminate against a large segment that has a high risk (blacks and hispanics).

But, it's A-OK to discrimate another large segment because of the same exact thing (gay men).

Thanks for furthering my point that it is still A-OK to discriminate against gay people in the US.

As far as the "risk" when talking about insurance. At least they don't differentiate between a black man, white man, gay man. They assume that it's a man so there is a risk.

Shouldn't the same be done for the blood supply? If you ban one segment for being at a higher risk then they need to ban ALL higher risk people. Especially blacks with over 50% of HIV in this country.

Or is the risk worth it because they aren't "gay"?

EXACTLY.

BAN ALL THOSE THAT HAVE HIGH RISK.

If you have a high risk...get banned. its that simple.

If over 50% of all people with HIV is black....either ban blacks from giving blood or have those that do so go through a preliminary test to make sure they are clean.

Same with gay people.

Same with any other segment of society that has high risk.

Thats not PC...thats common sense.

Maybe if they use my idea innocent people wont get a death sentence of HIV or other diseases.

Maybe if i get shot or injured and need blood i wont wake up to find that i have a disease given to me by some high risk person.

Im tired of being told to be silent because what i say 'offends' a certain group of people in this country. When what im stating and advocating is just common sense. we have gotten so worried about hurting someones feelings or getting sued its ridiculous.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by tauempire]

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by tauempire

 

I agree. And that's why I bring it up.

It's un-PC to discriminate against a large segment that has a high risk (blacks and hispanics).

But, it's A-OK to discrimate another large segment because of the same exact thing (gay men).

Thanks for furthering my point that it is still A-OK to discriminate against gay people in the US.

I'm not sure the term "discriminate" is completely applicable here and this is my reasoning.

I looked up the definition of "discriminate" and found: www.merriam-webster.com...

prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

And of course the definition of "prejudiced" is literally pre-judged or "preconceived judgment". So if we said let's ban people because they are black, that would be prejudiced action.

But if we say "look at the infection rates for blacks. It's over 50%. Based on the data, blacks should be banned due to the high risk" I ask you, is that pre-judging, or post-judging? It seems to me like it's looking at the data first, then making a judgment based on the data. I would call that post-judging, not pre-judging.

Even so it's probably not PC so it will probably not happen. But I don't see it as prejudiced to call for banning donating groups based on statistical data of infection rates, whatever the groups are. The fact that the decisions are being made on statistical data says to me it's a post-judgment, not a prejudgment. But we have to have the data first. If we don't, then it would be prejudiced discrimination.

I'm on the fence with this one.

On the one hand it feels wrong that somebody's sexual orientation can prevent them from donating blood. It is not only homosexuals that get HIV. There are screening processes in place that will prevent somebody in need from getting "non-healthy" blood.

On the other hand, does it not seem logical to prevent a high-risk group from donating blood? Even if it seems discriminatory, people that need blood will get "healthy" blood quicker and more easily if people from a high-risk group are prevented from donating.

But it does seem unfair that one group of people (gay people) can be excluded, but another group (black) cannot. The other problem is where do you draw the line? Inevitably it will get to a stage where only celebrant, white women will be allowed to donate. I don't think most people want to see that happen in this day and age.

[edit on 27/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by tauempire
BAN ALL THOSE THAT HAVE HIGH RISK.

I would have no problem with that.

The problem would be though that there would be no more blood. Because even monogamous women are getting HIV from their husbands.

A black monogamous female is more likely to contract HIV than a white prostitute. 42 percent of new HIV cases are attributed to African Americans, yet African Americans comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population.

media.www.chicagoflame.com...

Don't forget the risk of heterosexual sex too.

Heterosexual contact—The largest category for being infected with HIV among women of color is heterosexual contact—having sex with a man who uses injection drugs, is HIV-infected, or whose HIV status is unknown to the young woman.[1] For example, in 2002 among cumulative HIV/AIDS cases, 77 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander women, 74 percent of African American women, 72 percent of Latinas, and 62 percent of Native American women reported heterosexual contact as their risk factor

www.advocatesforyouth.org...

Why not just screen all blood instead? That way we have a supply of blood.

But, no. We would rather ban gay men even though they make up only a percentage of those who have the disease while the other percentage is allowed to donate.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Very insightful. And I agree.

So what is it?

Ban all risk groups? Or just gays?

Or.......actually test the freekin blood?

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Very insightful. And I agree.

So what is it?

Ban all risk groups? Or just gays?

Or.......actually test the freekin blood?

We're already testing the blood. And I'm not sure how accurate the wiki numbers are but they sound credible. They say something like 2.5 per million are getting infected even after screening the blood. That's probably due to imperfections in the screening process. If we add a high risk group to the pool with a higher infection rate, we should expect that number to go up. I don't know how much, but lets say it goes up 60% to 4 per million infections.

Personally I would like to see it as low as possible, but if we start banning other high risk groups and that creates critical blood shortages, then we may actually have more people dying from lack of blood availability than from aids infections. Ideally we'd balance all those risks out so the fewest people get sick and/or die, but it looks like a tricky balancing act.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Personally I would like to see it as low as possible, but if we start banning other high risk groups and that creates critical blood shortages, then we may actually have more people dying from lack of blood availability than from aids infections. Ideally we'd balance all those risks out so the fewest people get sick and/or die, but it looks like a tricky balancing act.

First, I starred your post.

Second, I can garantee that there would be more than 2.5-4 per million people who die when the blood supply isn't there anymore.

In fact, about 5 million people each year in the United States get blood transfusions.

kidshealth.org...

So, 5 million need a blood transfusion per year.

2.5 per million would end up being 12.5 getting HIV per year.

4 per million would be 20 getting HIV per year.

Is that risk worth losing 5 million people per year?

BTW, HIV isn't a death sentence anymore. But not getting blood when you need it is.

Which risk outweighs the other?

We do test the blood....but HIV tests are hardly ever false-negative...you either have it or you dont.

And we may get blood shortages. but could that not be fixed with incentives?

And i do realize that blacks and gays make up a small percentage of the population. As well as i realize that most people infected with HIV are heterosexual.

But statistics dont lie.

A very large majority of gay men have non-monogamous relationships. the gay community is very promiscuous.

We cant deny the statistics.

Gay men and african americans are the highest risk groups. we must do something about that. lets not try to tell them to quit screwing like rabbits because that wont work. We have been trying this for years. The gay community has been this way since the 60s.

alot of it comes from drugs. At least from the african american demographic.

we have a conundrum. Do we ban those of high risk demographics and risk a blood shortage?

or have thousands upon thousands infected with life changing and sometimes life ending diseases.

There is pretty much no alternatives.

Pick wisely.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Nature, thats who. And if any of you really have to inquire about that, then I feel more than disappointed be it coming from the ATS society.

When was the last time you saw two male deer getting it on?

Or how baout two male otters?

Perhaps two male bears? Get of the point people!? Ins nature it ain't right!

Itts only right in the minds ofn those who are wrong. [/quuote]

And I assume yoou are a PhD animal biologist whco has read all of the scientiafic references to mammalian homosexulity among, say elephants (# Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin's Press ISBN 0-312-19239-8); bison (Imaginova (2007e). LiveScience.com - Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild - Kob; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007) and since you mentioned it, bears (# Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). supra). Let's see, you were also rightously positive about deer. Wrong!!! Read Bagemihl supra at page 378.
Is it true that most homophobes are really closet homosexuals?
Bagemihl devotes three chapters; Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities.
Biology, as a science, has now outgrown that ignorance.

Hmm...I'm seeing where this is going.

Oh, sorry, you're not allowed to draft me into the military, I'm gay
can't take my blood, I'm gay
Can't microchip me...gay
Can't sign me up for free health care...gay
can't charge me with terrorism...hay way say SO gay
can't give me a parking ticket Ggay

G'day okay?

Originally posted by tauempire
But statistics dont lie.

A very large majority of gay men have non-monogamous relationships. the gay community is very promiscuous.

Ok, where is your source, I find this statement laughable, there is no way a reliable survey could have been done, unless someone has a long list of all the gay people in America, and they would have to have all the closeted ones on that list to, so even if there was a survey on this I would hardly consider it scientific and more so of someone being biased, but i'll make my mind up when I see it.

Gay men and african americans are the highest risk groups. we must do something about that. lets not try to tell them to quit screwing like rabbits because that wont work. We have been trying this for years. The gay community has been this way since the 60s.

Proof!? Where is it?

Men in general want to screw like rabbits, its hardwired in our brain, men love sex, so to blame it all on the gays and blacks is a little ignorant. Unless you can prove anything that you stated as fact in your posts then i'm just going to consider you a troll.

or have thousands upon thousands infected with life changing and sometimes life ending diseases.

Well all the other high risk groups are allowed to donate and have been doing it since blood donation began and the world isn't falling apart and people are not contracting aids left and right from blood, but we can't donate even though african americans can donate, and you know why that is and what alot of people are trying to deny, because we are gay, if there was anything logical about this rule then all groups with a high risk should be banned.

Originally posted by Nutter
So, 5 million need a blood transfusion per year.

2.5 per million would end up being 12.5 getting HIV per year.

4 per million would be 20 getting HIV per year.

Is that risk worth losing 5 million people per year?

BTW, HIV isn't a death sentence anymore. But not getting blood when you need it is.

Which risk outweighs the other?

I starred your post too, and I agree with your point, but your math seems to imply that if we banned another group from donating blood, then the 5 million people wouldn't get transfusions and die. I'm not sure that's true. For example, I used to donate a lot of blood because it was easy and convenient. I haven't donated any lately because it's inconvenient. But if they started a campaign about critical blood shortages and that people would die without it, I would find a way to overcome the inconvenience and donate some more and I'm sure I'm not the only one who could be coaxed into donating if the need arises. I'm not sure we have enough information to do all the math.

But it's a distinct possibility we could end up with a lot more people dying due to blood shortages than due to AIDs. But I doubt it would be 5 million. However ANY increase over the AIDs infection rate is taking us in the wrong direction.

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by tauempire
But statistics dont lie.

A very large majority of gay men have non-monogamous relationships. the gay community is very promiscuous.

Ok, where is your source, I find this statement laughable, there is no way a reliable survey could have been done, unless someone has a long list of all the gay people in America, and they would have to have all the closeted ones on that list to, so even if there was a survey on this I would hardly consider it scientific and more so of someone being biased, but i'll make my mind up when I see it.

You're joking right? You know that we can determine who will win an election with a high degree of accuracy by polling a relatively small number pf people, perhaps as low as 1500. There's no need to interview all people in a population, just take a sample and it's got a high confidence of being representative of the larger population if done right.

www.frc.org...



Maybe Society is partly to blame for not letting homosexuals get married? There's no married homosexual data.