Gays Want Their Blood In Public Blood Supply

[Donkeyfish07]

Just when I think things can't get anymore ridiculous.

 

[Grey]

You know they can test for HIV and AIDS now right? Its not like we have this gigantic unlimited supply of blood and the 'gays' want to throw AIDS in it.

 

[Ritter]

I would hope they screen all the blood for HIV and AIDS.

Really though the AMA has just proved that it isn't out for health and wellness so much as it is for leftist political causes and bureaucratic monstrosities.

 

[Grey]

I would hope they screen all the blood for HIV and AIDS.

Really though the AMA has just proved that it isn't out for health and wellness so much as it is for leftist political causes and bureaucratic monstrosities.

They do, they check even the people who said they were straight and nonsexually active, I have a relative whos a physician and I talked to one of the blood drive people the last time I gave blood.

 

[Batman007]

Yep I give blood regularly, there's a screening process where they go through sexual history and even then all the blood gets tested. Besides people, homosexuals are not the only ones out there with HIV -_-

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) states that homosexual men are 44 to 86 times [depending on their secondary demographics] more likely to be infected with HIV than non-homosexuals and that homosexuals aged 13-24 years old account for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24 years of age.

Redirect Page

Introducing their blood into the U.S. blood bank would be a death sentence for a large number of non-homosexual men, women, and children whom would otherwise not be infected. Are you trying to murder large numbers of non-homosexual men, women, and children or are you just here to troll?

Aids is not a gay only disease. And gays aren't the only ones that partake in anal intercourse.

 

[presidente]

Based on the statistics above, just consider this.

You're in need of a blood transfusion.

There are two bags of blood to choose from.

Bag 1 is labeled straight blood.
Bag 2 is labeled gay blood.

Based on the statistics alone, bag 1 would be the safest choice.

Now why even introduce option two into our blood supply?
Yes there are screening processes, but they can fail, and with more gay blood to screen, the chances of failure also increase.

Is it really worth our health, just so we don't feel all mean about "discriminating"?

There is an idea. They can label the blood. People who want to show their solidarity with the LGBT community can opt for the 'gay blood'. They are probably more likely to vote for politicians who support gay marriage. But the percentage of the population that receives blood transfusions is probably so small that this scenario would probably not significantly impact on the electorate.

 

[presidente]

You know they can test for HIV and AIDS now right? Its not like we have this gigantic unlimited supply of blood and the 'gays' want to throw AIDS in it.

AIDS is not the only disease.

 

[Isa615]

@AgeofKnowledge: dude, come out of attack mode for a second. Iron Chariot's actually right on that point.

 

[Grey]

AIDS is not the only disease.

And that's why they test the blood!!

 

[RickShafer]

You know they can test for HIV and AIDS now right? Its not like we have this gigantic unlimited supply of blood and the 'gays' want to throw AIDS in it.

'Boy, ....that stupid FDA for refusing homosexual blood.' - (Since it is so easy to test).
Aaaahaha! - 'Those backward scientists',....'don't they know the HIV virus doesn't mutate?'
(At least the politically correct AMA does). - Aaaahaha!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Anyone who understands how blood safety incidents happen realize that a single mistake will cost lives. But often it is a chain of events (even worse). That's why the rule should not be changed. We can't rely only on testing alone because, like anything else, it has a failure rate and there is a period of time which diseases homosexuals so often carry (HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, etc...) are not even detectable and yes accidents and human errors occur.

 

[IronChariots]

Since there's a chance straight people can contract
aids too the safest thing to do would be to not accept
blood from anyone I guess.

 

[RickShafer]

Since there's a chance straight people can contract
aids too the safest thing to do would be to not accept
blood from anyone I guess.

Well, neither the FDA or the AMA would agree with you.
The original O.P. point was that the FDA has prohibited homosexual men from giving blood;
while the AMA (American Medical Association) has disagreed.
Some say all blood is checked and therefore safe.
Others have pointed to the fact the Governmental Agency which oversees the blood supply has quarantined gay men from donating.
- So this is the rub.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Your logic is fallacious (e.g. logically flawed). Denying the single greatest risk factor of deadly diseases from infecting a nation's blood supply does not equate to we must stop everyone from giving blood. Acceptable risk analysis determines cost benefit ratios. The public’s view on risk is often contradictory and at times irrational. There are dangers in relying on pressure groups or the media as proxies for the public view. The single greatest risk factor to our blood supply is an unacceptable risk.

You're showing profound ignorance and immaturity in asserting otherwise as is your habit.

Since there's a chance straight people can contract
aids too the safest thing to do would be to not accept
blood from anyone I guess.

 

[IronChariots]

Is there a ban on people who get tattoos as well?

 

[Grey]

So when the AMA says "technology has advanced to the point where . . . it is antiquated to keep this policy in place and to keep those units of blood from entering the blood supply."

They also perform tests to see if

• ABO and Rh blood types.
• Unexpected red blood cell antibodies that are a result of prior transfusion, pregnancy, or other factors.
• Hepatitis B surface antigen, indicating a current infection (hepatitis) or carrier state for hepatitis B virus.
• Antibody to hepatitis B core antigen, indicator of a present or past infection with the hepatitis B virus.
• Antibody to hepatitis C virus, indicating a current or past infection with hepatitis C virus (most common cause of non-A/non-B hepatitis).
• Antibody to HTLV-I/II, indicator of infection with a virus that may cause adult T-cell leukemia or neurological disease.
• Antibody to HIV-1/2, indicator of infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
• Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) for hepatitis C (HCV), hepatitis B (HBV) and HIV.
• Screening test for antibodies to syphilis.
• NAT for West Nile Virus (WNV).
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) test for Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas Disease).

Keep in mind that those who need blood transfusions may have only hours to live.

 

[TracerBullet]

Your logic is fallacious (e.g. logically flawed). Denying the single greatest risk factor of deadly diseases from infecting a nation's blood supply does not equate to we must stop everyone from giving blood. Acceptable risk analysis determines cost benefit ratios. The public’s view on risk is often contradictory and at times irrational. There are dangers in relying on pressure groups or the media as proxies for the public view. The single greatest risk factor to our blood supply is an unacceptable risk.

You're showing profound ignorance and immaturity in asserting otherwise as is your habit.

according to the CDC African American males account for 70% of all now cases of HIV. maybe the FDA should start banning black people from donating blood.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

There is a 12 month waiting period from the time of receiving a tattoo until one can donate blood to protect the nation's blood supply.

Blood Donation Eligibility Guidelines

Is there a ban on people who get tattoos as well?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

By far most of those cases come from specific populations within the black community. It is for this reason the FDA currently excludes blood donors of African origin, for example. FDA rules state, "Persons who were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger and Nigeria since 1977 cannot be blood donors." African Americans outside of this group have much lower HIV rates per capita and can donate blood as long as they meet the other eligibility guidelines. The premise is sound: if you are in a high risk group for deadly disease like Aids and Hepatitis B, you cannot pose an abnormal risk for infecting people via blood donorship.

according to the CDC African American males account for 70% of all now cases of HIV. maybe the FDA should start banning black people from donating blood.