National "gay" blood drive aims to lift donation ban

reply to post by Helious

Originally posted by Helious

Forgive my ignorance but do they ask if you are homosexual when you go in to donate blood? I have never done it outside of once in high school and I don't recall that question.

Here↓ is an extensive list of the eligibility requirements for becoming a donor.
www.redcrossblood.org...

It almost seems as if they wanna know even more about you than you already know about yourself.....







reply to post by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

....supreme court case where the man was suing because his partner needed blood, he was a match donor, yet was refused at the hospital for being gay. His partner subsequently died.

Now I'm sure this is something that rarely happens, but it appears that it is possible that even your own blood may not be eligible for going back into your own body.

Making donations for your own use during surgery (autologous blood donation) is considered a medical procedure that requires a written prescription and the rules for eligibility are less strict than for regular volunteer donations.

www.redcrossblood.org...

'Less strict', but there are still rules for it nonetheless. They're probably so scared of gay blood that they may not even wanna let you reuse it yourself.


Maybe they think it could cause someone to become twice as gay. lol

Originally posted by Helious

That's simply orwellian, is the state you live in run by southern Baptists? You have just as good a chance of contracting HIV from hedrosexual inercourse as you would from homosexual intercourse, it doesn't make any sense realistically outside of bias.

I'm definitely not a homophobe -- do you know this for a fact?

I'm almost positive that it's much, much easier for men to contract HIV through homosexual (anal) intercourse than heterosexual intercourse.

I'm not a doctor and don't know much about HIV but I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Everyone here is posting with emotion.

What are the actual dangers of allowing gay blood donations?

Doesn't HIV take ~6-7 months to show up as positive on tests and don't 20% of gay men have HIV?

If that's the case then it would seem to make sense to exclude gay blood donations.

I'm sure someone has thought this out in much more depth than me though. So, I'm all ears on waiting to be educated on this.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


This is only true because the homosexual community is far more likely to get tested for HIV and other STD's than their straight counterparts. This is what leads to the higher number of diagnosed cases within that community.

Mmmm gay blood. My favorite flavor. But seriously, what leads to more HIV diagnoses is not just because more gay people get tested. It's because the ratio of HIV infected men is much higher in the gay population. Did I really have to tell you that? I don't blame people for not wanting gay blood. It's not just because of the gay sex either, more homosexuals have HIV and aids also because the gay culture is more heavily involved in drug use.

I mean I don't have anything against gay people, I'm just saying the factual reasons behind not being able to donate blood. Seems legit to me. It's not discrimination if it's for safety reasons.

My mom is a nurse at an Infectious Disease clinic. 99% of HIV infected people who come in are homosexual black men. Like I said, I have nothing against homosexuals, or black people for that matter, but facts are facts.

You know some homophobe moron is gonna come alone and say "Gay blood meks people gay!"... and then we will have paranoid people supporting anti-donation.... oh what a world...

reply to post by RedDragon


Yes Yes.. only Homosexuals have Anal sex *facepalm* also love the way you called anal sex homosexual lol

Lets see... 95% heterosexuals... 5% homosexuals... in the world population... ***even if all**** the homosexuals had anal sex, it would not come close to the amount of heterosexual anal sex...

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by RedDragon

 

Yes Yes.. only Homosexuals have Anal sex *facepalm* also love the way you called anal sex homosexual lol

Lets see... 95% heterosexuals... 5% homosexuals... in the world population... ***even if all**** the homosexuals had anal sex, it would not come close to the amount of heterosexual anal sex...

edit on 7/12/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

I never said that only homosexual men have anal sex. You're saying that I said things that I never said because me saying those things would fit your stereotype of a homophobe and reinforce your emotional bias.

If really comes down to 1 question -- why do some studies show that 20% of gay men in the US have HIV? 1 in 5!

Obviously, in regards to contracting HIV, something is different about the way gay people have sex than the way straight people have sex.. Wouldn't you agree?

And, since there are differences in regards to contracting HIV between male-to-male sex and male-to-female sex, isn't it a valid question to ask when trying to prevent HIV contamination?

It essentially comes down to evolution. Evolutionary pressures have made heterosexual sex pretty safe in regards to catching things like HIV.. 20% of straight people contracting a (naturally) fatal virus from reproduction would have been a huge natural selection pressure. No such selection pressures existed for male-to-male sex, hence why it's more dangerous.

reply to post by RedDragon

Doesn't HIV take ~6-7 months to show up as positive on tests and don't 20% of gay men have HIV?

Ah no. That's not true at all.

If that's the case then it would seem to make sense to exclude gay blood donations.

If that was true, maybe. Since it's not, the point is pretty moot.

I'm almost positive that it's much, much easier for men to contract HIV through homosexual (anal) intercourse than heterosexual intercourse.

HIV is passed through bodily fluids during sexual intercourse. The risk is just as high, regardless of how you are doing it.

If really comes down to 1 question -- why do some studies show that 20% of gay men in the US have HIV? 20%!

You'll need to post those studies, a long with the information on who funded them and what their controls were.

The ONLY reason that homosexuals have higher rates of HIV in their community, is because they are more likely to get tested than heterosexuals. More testing, will always equal more positive results, which skews the data.

Also:

Testing

Before blood is issued to hospitals for use in transfusion, it is tested for:

Infectious Diseases: Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C, HIV 1 and 2 (the viruses that cause AIDS) and Human T-Cell lymphotropic virus HTLV-I and II (the viruses that can cause a rare form of leukemia in adults and chronic nervous system disease)
West Nile Virus (WNV)
Chagas Disease ( Trypanosoma Cruzi)
Blood Groups and Antibody Screening: to determine ABO and Rh type, blood group antibodies

In addition to screening out individuals whose health or high risk activities may put recipients at risk, stringent laboratory tests for infectious diseases are conducted on each unit of blood or plasma.

No matter how many times a donor may have donated, each unit of blood or plasma collected is tested to detect agents that might cause diseases including AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis and West Nile Virus. If the blood or plasma tests positive for any disease marker, it is destroyed and the donor is notified of the abnormal test results.*

Source

The tests performed by Canadian Blood Services are so sensitive that they sometimes produce "false reactive" or "false positive” results. This occurs in a small number of donors when elements in their healthy blood trigger a reaction.

All units that produce initial positive results are subjected to additional, confirmatory testing. If confirmatory testing produces a negative result, the unit is considered a "false reactive" or "false positive". A negative result in confirmatory testing is reassuring news for the healthy donor.

Nevertheless, no unit that initially produces a reactive result is ever transfused. Canadian Blood Services errs on the side of safety. It destroys any blood unit that tests "reactive" or "false positive" and maintains records so that these individuals are not accepted for blood donation in the future.

The process is exactly the same in the US. There is NO mention of them having issues identifying these diseases during their testing process. As a matter of fact only on a very small number of occasions has the testing actually failed and blood with a disease was provided to the patient.

This policy is based in misplaced fear and misinformation.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by RedDragon

 

Doesn't HIV take ~6-7 months to show up as positive on tests and don't 20% of gay men have HIV?

Ah no. That's not true at all.

If that's the case then it would seem to make sense to exclude gay blood donations.

If that was true, maybe. Since it's not, the point is pretty moot.

I'm almost positive that it's much, much easier for men to contract HIV through homosexual (anal) intercourse than heterosexual intercourse.

HIV is passed through bodily fluids during sexual intercourse. The risk is just as high, regardless of how you are doing it.

If really comes down to 1 question -- why do some studies show that 20% of gay men in the US have HIV? 20%!

You'll need to post those studies, a long with the information on who funded them and what their controls were.

The ONLY reason that homosexuals have higher rates of HIV in their community, is because they are more likely to get tested than heterosexuals. More testing, will always equal more positive results, which skews the data.

Also:

Testing

Before blood is issued to hospitals for use in transfusion, it is tested for:

Infectious Diseases: Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C, HIV 1 and 2 (the viruses that cause AIDS) and Human T-Cell lymphotropic virus HTLV-I and II (the viruses that can cause a rare form of leukemia in adults and chronic nervous system disease)
West Nile Virus (WNV)
Chagas Disease ( Trypanosoma Cruzi)
Blood Groups and Antibody Screening: to determine ABO and Rh type, blood group antibodies

In addition to screening out individuals whose health or high risk activities may put recipients at risk, stringent laboratory tests for infectious diseases are conducted on each unit of blood or plasma.

No matter how many times a donor may have donated, each unit of blood or plasma collected is tested to detect agents that might cause diseases including AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis and West Nile Virus. If the blood or plasma tests positive for any disease marker, it is destroyed and the donor is notified of the abnormal test results.*

Source

The tests performed by Canadian Blood Services are so sensitive that they sometimes produce "false reactive" or "false positive” results. This occurs in a small number of donors when elements in their healthy blood trigger a reaction.

All units that produce initial positive results are subjected to additional, confirmatory testing. If confirmatory testing produces a negative result, the unit is considered a "false reactive" or "false positive". A negative result in confirmatory testing is reassuring news for the healthy donor.

Nevertheless, no unit that initially produces a reactive result is ever transfused. Canadian Blood Services errs on the side of safety. It destroys any blood unit that tests "reactive" or "false positive" and maintains records so that these individuals are not accepted for blood donation in the future.

The process is exactly the same in the US. There is NO mention of them having issues identifying these diseases during their testing process. As a matter of fact only on a very small number of occasions has the testing actually failed and blood with a disease was provided to the patient.

This policy is based in misplaced fear and misinformation.

~Tenth

I just googled my numbers. HIV taking up to 6 months to show up as positive on a blood test and 20% of gay men in the US having HIV are both accurate numbers. No where near 20% of straight people have HIV. I'd be surprised if it were 1% -- and then, it's going to mostly be due to IV drug use, not heterosexual sex. Especially in heterosexual men; though heterosexual women will catch it from bisexual men.

As you said, HIV is spread via body fluids. The catch is that the body fluids have to make it inside of the other person's body. The anus and vagina tear very easily, making it easy for HIV infected body fluids to get into a person's body. The penis, I'm guessing since it doesn't get repeatedly penetrated, does not tear nearly as easily.

Straight people only have anal sex into the female; gay men do it both ways. So, HIV spreads easily among gay men. Not nearly as easily among heterosexual people, especially heterosexual men. I think it's pretty much impossible, or close to it, for a non-IV-drug-using heterosexual male to contract HIV.

It goes without saying that lesbians probably have a nearly non-existent HIV rate, unless they correlate highly with things like IV drug use.. I would actually bet money that there's never been more than a handful of HIV transmission cases caused by lesbian sex. Like, literally countable on 2 or 3 hands.

I don't actually know any of these #s except for HIV taking up to 6 months to have a detectable amount of antibodies and 20% of gay US men having HIV. I'm just using easy, non-emotional logic to derive what I think has to be true. This stuff isn't rocket-science; most people just have crazy emotional biases. Either they're homophobes or homosexuals; I'm neither. So it's easy to analyze.

Enough of my baseless and pointless ranting.. the point is that male-male sex, like IV drug use, is a HUGE risk factor for HIV and that HIV can still be in the blood but be undetectable. So, it seems to make sense to ban donations from people who engage in that potentially fatal (to the recipient) risk factor.

reply to post by RedDragon

I just googled my numbers. HIV taking up to 6 months to show up on a blood test and 20% of gay men in the US having HIV are both accurate numbers. No where near 20% of straight people have HIV. I'd be surprised if it were 1% -- and then, it's going to be due to IV drug use, not heterosexual sex. Especially in men; women will catch it from bisexual men.

Again, post these sources that you found. Especially the one about 6 months to show up on a blood test, as that actually makes no sense.

Regardless of that fact, the advancements in blood testing, along wit the success rate of finding disease prior to blood being given to a donor are such that it makes preventing gay men from giving blood ridiculous.

~Tenth

reply to post by RedDragon

Originally posted by RedDragon

I'm definitely not a homophobe -- do you know this for a fact?

I actually do believe that you honestly believe you're not a homophobe. However, belief alone is not enough to create a fact. Your homophobic mannerisms seem to be ingrained so deep in you that you don't even realize they are there.

Originally posted by RedDragon

I'm almost positive that it's much, much easier for men to contract HIV through homosexual (anal) intercourse than heterosexual intercourse.

'Homosexual Intercourse' does not necessarily mean 'Anal Intercourse'.
& vice versa
'Anal Intercourse' does not necessarily mean 'Homosexual Intercourse'.

Originally posted by RedDragon

.......20% of gay men in the US having HIV are both accurate numbers. No where near 20% of straight people have HIV. I'd be surprised if it were 1% -- and then, it's going to be due to IV drug use, not heterosexual sex. Especially in men; women will catch it from bisexual men.

Those numbers will never be entirely accurate, unless you also know exactly how many homosexuals there are that still hide their true self from the public eye.

Originally posted by RedDragon

........[color=DEC581]women will catch it from bisexual men.

lol.... You just can't help it, can you?

Originally posted by RedDragon

Straight people only have anal sex into the female; gay people do it both ways.

Just because someone is gay, that does not necessarily mean that they enjoy being both the 'pitcher' and the 'catcher'.


and the first part of that↑statement(Straight people only....), that's not necessarily true either.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by RedDragon

 

I just googled my numbers. HIV taking up to 6 months to show up on a blood test and 20% of gay men in the US having HIV are both accurate numbers. No where near 20% of straight people have HIV. I'd be surprised if it were 1% -- and then, it's going to be due to IV drug use, not heterosexual sex. Especially in men; women will catch it from bisexual men.

Again, post these sources that you found. Especially the one about 6 months to show up on a blood test, as that actually makes no sense.

Regardless of that fact, the advancements in blood testing, along wit the success rate of finding disease prior to blood being given to a donor are such that it makes preventing gay men from giving blood ridiculous.

~Tenth

Taking up to 6 months to test +: www.sfaf.org...

The window period can be from 9 days to 3-6 months, depending on the person's body and on the HIV-test that's used. During that time, you can test HIV negative even though you're HIV infected. You can still catch HIV from someone who is in the window period. In fact, there is evidence that a person in the window period is more likely to pass the virus on.

20% of US gay men have HIV: healthland.time.com...

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active gay and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don’t know it.

So, there's a 6 month window where blood will be potentially HIV + but show up HIV - in a population with a 20% HIV rate.. unless there's something I don't know (very possible), I wouldn't want to take my chances with that blood.

reply to post by RedDragon

Originally posted by RedDragon

20% of US gay men have HIV: healthland.time.com...
Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active gay and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don’t know it.

Do you honestly believe that this is an accurate number for the entire population?

More than [color=FFCA85]8,000 self-identifying gay and bisexual men (or, as the researchers call them, MSM, for men who have sex with men) [color=FFCA85]were tested by CDC workers [color=FFCA85]in the 21 American cities with the highest infection rates. The gay population in Baltimore had the highest rates of HIV infection, at 38%, while Atlanta scored lowest, at 6%.

healthland.time.com...

reply to post by RedDragon


You do realize that blood testing is not done immediately after blood is donated right?

There's a minimum wait time based on HIV's detection threshold as well as the others that are listed in my links above.

Again, the technology that we use to verify if blood is tainted with disease or not, is far too good to prevent gay men from giving blood.

There is hardly any risk, because of the high quality testing procedures.

~Tenth

Excellent thread Sir, star and flag.

It saddens me that in 2013 this is still an issue.

Growing up, I had an aunt who suffered with HIV. We lived in a very rural, very Catholic Newfoundland outport community, and to many residents there she was persona non grata, people would leave hateful messages, threats, nailed to her door and other such acts of hate.

This was in the very early 90s when the stigma attached to the disease when in full swing, but at the time, he was my favorite aunt to visit. My parents were very enlightened on the issue and we always made a point of visiting at her home, eating meals there, sleeping overnight.

She has long since passed away but I still miss her. I wish she were alive today to see how much farther our society has come in acceptance of AIDs patients.. well, most folks, anyway.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


It better be labeled just as GMO should be.....If it is disclosed to the person in need, I see no real issue....But that person better be notified before getting the blood to me....

I would not accept......Just like I refuse to eat GMO's....

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

It better be labeled just as GMO should be.....If it is disclosed to the person in need, I see no real issue....But that person better be notified before getting the blood to me....

I would not accept......Just like I refuse to eat GMO's....

edit on 7/12/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)

What difference does that make?

Would you also not accept blood for black donors, or old people?

Jews?

Muslims?

Why would bring GMO's into it is another story all together. Then again, since there is NO GMO labeling in North America, you eat GMO's all day long and don't even notice, since it's impossible to tell what's GMO and what isn't.

Back on topic thought.

I find it highly spurious that you would want 'gay' blood labeled.

~Tenth

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

It better be labeled just as GMO should be.....If it is disclosed to the person in need, I see no real issue....But that person better be notified before getting the blood to me....

I would not accept......Just like I refuse to eat GMO's....

Sadly, I already knew it to be true, but thanks anyways for helping to validate a statement from a previous [color=CFCDB4]post of mine.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

There are plenty of people who already think that way, as if homosexuals are an entirely different breed of Humans.(or some sort of a genetic defect)

[color=ADFF94]Contrary to what some may think, homosexuality is not the result of some sort of genetic flaw. Sexual preference has no relation to the genetic makeup of human blood cells.

My husband is a frequent donator of blood since his years in the military, they even call him every so many months to remind him to donate.

I have no problem with donating blood and everybody that can it should and gender orientation should not be an issue, I think that those in the blood banks do not want to spend money on testing the blood to maker sure it has not problems.

Blood should be tested regardless, I know that in my neck of the woods no only you have to fill out pages and pages of information but also if something is bad with your blood you get to have a phone call telling you about the findings.

That is the way it should be.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by RedDragon

 

There is hardly any risk, because of the high quality testing procedures.

~Tenth

Well now I feel better.

But if there is so little of a risk, I think we should remove all stipulations and allow anyone to donate. I mean, how can you sleep at night, judging a person based on their addiction to heroin. Besides, donations are down and we can test for any narcotics present in the donated blood anyways....