Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

FDA & Homosexual Blood Donors

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 2:41:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://mobile.nytimes.com...=

After 31 years of excluding anyone who's had sex with another man for life from donation blood, the FDA has opted for a ban on any man who's had sex with a man in the past 12 months.

Thoughts? Anyone?

I think it's progress, but still overkill. If a person is tested before donating, there shouldn't be much of a problem.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 7:08:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bump
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 12:12:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2014 2:41:14 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://mobile.nytimes.com...=

After 31 years of excluding anyone who's had sex with another man for life from donation blood, the FDA has opted for a ban on any man who's had sex with a man in the past 12 months.

Thoughts? Anyone?

I think it's progress, but still overkill. If a person is tested before donating, there shouldn't be much of a problem.

Well, most tests have a limit to how far back they test. For example, you can get a false negative up to six months after actually contracting HIV with some tests. If you're going to mass test in a cost effective manner, this is a real hurdle to surmount. 12 months is actually a good buffer zone to have with any group which is statistically high risk.

More inexpensive and accurate tests would of course eliminate this consideration, but until then I think that eliminating a few donors from the pool is a small risk when you consider the cost of an unintended contamination.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
FaustianJustice
Posts: 7,108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 1:16:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2014 2:41:14 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://mobile.nytimes.com...=

After 31 years of excluding anyone who's had sex with another man for life from donation blood, the FDA has opted for a ban on any man who's had sex with a man in the past 12 months.

Thoughts? Anyone?

I think it's progress, but still overkill. If a person is tested before donating, there shouldn't be much of a problem.

Agree? There shouldn't be much of a problem, one would think keeping the stuff on tap and engaging in periodic testing would be a regular thing, considering the nature of the affliction, though I am curious...

How many people are HIV positive are in need of transfusions vs how many would knowingly donate (and admit to) being HIV positive? Or is the potential for cross contamination in such a fashion to great?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:38:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 12:07:22 AM, YYW wrote:
I think the moratorium on gay men giving blood is absurd.

Well, it's sexually active gay men, and it is due to high risk pool.
Similarly, not being able to donate for a year if traveled to a country with Malaria, or even a straight man having sex with a prostitute or using drugs (needle variety I assume).

Seems fair to me.
Perhaps too big of an err for caution, but rather err on the side of safety than risk, I suppose.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 40,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 9:46:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 9:38:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 12:07:22 AM, YYW wrote:
I think the moratorium on gay men giving blood is absurd.

Well, it's sexually active gay men, and it is due to high risk pool.
Similarly, not being able to donate for a year if traveled to a country with Malaria, or even a straight man having sex with a prostitute or using drugs (needle variety I assume).

Seems fair to me.
Perhaps too big of an err for caution, but rather err on the side of safety than risk, I suppose.

I mean... at the end of the day, what it means is that people like me (universal donors who are gay) will not give blood... although I haven't had sex since bsh1 and I got serious...
Trump did something right!

http://www.debate.org...

Discuss.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:26:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 9:46:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:38:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 12:07:22 AM, YYW wrote:
I think the moratorium on gay men giving blood is absurd.

Well, it's sexually active gay men, and it is due to high risk pool.
Similarly, not being able to donate for a year if traveled to a country with Malaria, or even a straight man having sex with a prostitute or using drugs (needle variety I assume).

Seems fair to me.
Perhaps too big of an err for caution, but rather err on the side of safety than risk, I suppose.

I mean... at the end of the day, what it means is that people like me (universal donors who are gay) will not give blood... although I haven't had sex since bsh1 and I got serious...

I get that, but what do you recommend?
How can you ensure safety from high risk pools?
I think if you were in jail, you have to wait six months or a year as well, or at least, it was the rule 14 years ago.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 40,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:27:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 10:26:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:46:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:38:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 12:07:22 AM, YYW wrote:
I think the moratorium on gay men giving blood is absurd.

Well, it's sexually active gay men, and it is due to high risk pool.
Similarly, not being able to donate for a year if traveled to a country with Malaria, or even a straight man having sex with a prostitute or using drugs (needle variety I assume).

Seems fair to me.
Perhaps too big of an err for caution, but rather err on the side of safety than risk, I suppose.

I mean... at the end of the day, what it means is that people like me (universal donors who are gay) will not give blood... although I haven't had sex since bsh1 and I got serious...

I get that, but what do you recommend?
How can you ensure safety from high risk pools?
I think if you were in jail, you have to wait six months or a year as well, or at least, it was the rule 14 years ago.

The thing is that the risk isn't that high. The risk is only high among gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners.
Trump did something right!

http://www.debate.org...

Discuss.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:30:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 10:27:28 AM, YYW wrote:

The thing is that the risk isn't that high. The risk is only high among gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners.

Well, that is true, but can you legally ask that?
Should they ask nuanced questions like that?
My work here is, finally, done.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,619
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 5:05:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2014 2:41:14 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://mobile.nytimes.com...=

After 31 years of excluding anyone who's had sex with another man for life from donation blood, the FDA has opted for a ban on any man who's had sex with a man in the past 12 months.

Thoughts? Anyone?

I think it's progress, but still overkill. If a person is tested before donating, there shouldn't be much of a problem.

Actually excluding for life then shortening it to 12 months is huge progress--something that I'd say is a little too much, as HIV in the early stages does not always show up in testing. In terms of development, it can take around 5-7 years.
'What's so funny about me ranting about stupid stuff when it's f*cking obvious the subtitles are wrong'?--Hitler
16kadams
Posts: 10,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 7:10:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 10:30:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 10:27:28 AM, YYW wrote:

The thing is that the risk isn't that high. The risk is only high among gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners.

Well, that is true, but can you legally ask that?
Should they ask nuanced questions like that?

You really wouldn't need to have many sexual partners, or even be sexually active. I think 18% of gay *men* had HIV in a 2011 survey. So having one partner out of a random sample means you have an 18% chance to come into contact with the person. And it is possible for an HIV infection.

You wouldn't even have to have had sex. A huge portion of HIV/AIDS transmissions are due to drug usage, something which (sadly) afflicts the homosexual community a lot. For whatever reason. So the use of inject-able drugs--which is generally higher in homosexual portions of society--can also increase HIV risk.

Also, homosexuals who engage in anal sex (and even heterosexuals) are more likely to get HIV/AIDS, because there are a lot fewer "walls" into the blood stream from an anal cavity when compared to a vaginal area. There is tearing and other things which occur in the anus which simply doesn't happen in the vagina. So the nature of homosexual sex increases the risk of HIV transmission.

And even with all of that... I still support homosexuals giving blood. Blood is in a shortage and can save many lives. They generally check the blood before giving it to patients anyway. I suppose they want to prevent a mess up. But yet again, the question is whether or not donors of LGBT status will save more lives than harm with HIV. And the answer is yes. Every LGBT person who donates blood can save 3 lives. Every homosexual person with HIV ruins one. So the trade-off is in the homosexuals favor. I mean... the risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion would be miniscule into the comparison the amount of lives saved from allowing 2% of the population to donate blood.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 7:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
They should just ask if you've had unprotected sex in the last 12 months, gender not being part of the question.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TN05
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 7:59:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2014 10:27:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2014 10:26:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:46:15 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2014 9:38:53 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/24/2014 12:07:22 AM, YYW wrote:
I think the moratorium on gay men giving blood is absurd.

Well, it's sexually active gay men, and it is due to high risk pool.
Similarly, not being able to donate for a year if traveled to a country with Malaria, or even a straight man having sex with a prostitute or using drugs (needle variety I assume).

Seems fair to me.
Perhaps too big of an err for caution, but rather err on the side of safety than risk, I suppose.

I mean... at the end of the day, what it means is that people like me (universal donors who are gay) will not give blood... although I haven't had sex since bsh1 and I got serious...

I get that, but what do you recommend?
How can you ensure safety from high risk pools?
I think if you were in jail, you have to wait six months or a year as well, or at least, it was the rule 14 years ago.

The thing is that the risk isn't that high. The risk is only high among gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners.

That must be a fairly high number, given that the 4% of population that is MSM makes up 78% of new HIV cases and 54% of people living with HIV (https://www.aids.gov...).
TN05
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 8:02:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2014 7:43:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
They should just ask if you've had unprotected sex in the last 12 months, gender not being part of the question.

Why so? The 97% of the population that is not MSM makes up only 22% of new AIDS cases, and I severely doubt most of those diagnoses were due to unprotected sex, not drug use. I mean, if we want to be consistent, sure. But statistically it just isn't that likely.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2014 8:02:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 7:43:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
They should just ask if you've had unprotected sex in the last 12 months, gender not being part of the question.

Why so? The 97% of the population that is not MSM makes up only 22% of new AIDS cases, and I severely doubt most of those diagnoses were due to unprotected sex, not drug use. I mean, if we want to be consistent, sure. But statistically it just isn't that likely.

AIDS isn't the only thing that can be transmitted by unprotected.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TN05
Posts: 4,605
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2014 8:59:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/25/2014 8:02:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 7:43:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
They should just ask if you've had unprotected sex in the last 12 months, gender not being part of the question.

Why so? The 97% of the population that is not MSM makes up only 22% of new AIDS cases, and I severely doubt most of those diagnoses were due to unprotected sex, not drug use. I mean, if we want to be consistent, sure. But statistically it just isn't that likely.

AIDS isn't the only thing that can be transmitted by unprotected.

Agreed. But, ultimately, preventing anyone who is heterosexually active from donating blood would eliminate such a broad swath of the population as to make blood donation near impossible to cover blood needs. The reason MSMs are banned is that the rates of STDs, including HIV/AIDS, are absurdly higher among them than the rest of the population. 1 in 5 gay men have AIDS, and half of them don't know they have it. (http://kaiserhealthnews.org...) That is a massive public safety hazard for blood and one the vast majority of straight men don't face.

Put it this way - is one person going to get AIDS that would't otherwise have gotten it because of this policy? If so, it's probably not a good idea.