| Dan C. 24.05.2007 00:44 |
link |
| user name 24.05.2007 01:16 |
Well, what are the figures of per capita HIV infection among homosexuals, drug users, and prostitutes vs. everyone else? I'd certainly have to know those before formulating an opinion on this matter. |
| Sweetie 24.05.2007 01:36 |
does this mean that African's can't donate and people from that area and such? |
| sparrow 21754 24.05.2007 01:37 |
im actually a part of an hiv/aids study to find a vaccine. i dont have it (you have to be healthy to do the study anyway) but i feel its for a good cause, and i get paid to do it :p |
| ***Marial-B*** 24.05.2007 02:53 |
That's like... an injustice. I mean, they're like us, just that they like people from the same sex. I have 3 gay friends now and they're like the biggest fun in the world. I even think they behave better than normal guys. |
| Sweetie 24.05.2007 03:21 |
<font color="magenta">Marial-B wrote: That's like... an injustice. I mean, they're like us, just that they like people from the same sex. I have 3 gay friends now and they're like the biggest fun in the world. I even think they behave better than normal guys.minus the bitching |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.05.2007 08:35 |
I think it's absurd. Gays, IV drug users and prostitutes are banned for life. What about spouses/partners of those who've had sex with hookers? Or with partners of drug users? Or a woman whose husband experimented with a guy? Or rape victims... I think what they should focus on is how and if donated blood is tested. Wasn't there an incident not long ago with the Red Cross where they hadn't gone through the proper procedures and much of the donated blood had to be destroyed? I believe that was after either 9/11 or Katrina. Who donated wasn't the issue. They were concerned the blood might be contaminated. Which means to me, it doesn't matter who donates, blood must be screened. THAT's what they should focus on, IMO. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 24.05.2007 09:57 |
Oh, I read about this yesterday. Some things on the Blood Donation thing you can lie about pretty easily...like have you had any tattoos in the last year. You technically can't donate for a year after you get them, but I specifically remember donating a few months after I got my first tattoo. But the HIV thing is a different story. Here is a link to some more info: link These are stats for the US. As you'll see, the number of cases in the US are predominately men (Black men at that) and the numbers are higher for homosexual men. But that number represents everyone living with AIDS now...and that means people who were exposed years and years ago. I know that the fastest growing group as per exposure is black women, and more people are being exposed to AIDS via heterosexual contact, while the numbers who get it from homosexual contact are dropping. I personally think that banning them for life is out-dated, especially when they always complain about shortages in the blood supply. What they don't always tell you is that it's very difficult for women to donate blood at all, because we naturally have lower iron levels than men, and since they want an iron level that is so high most of the time it's men who are doing the donating. Therefore, it appears to me that by banning almost a third of the half of the population that they will accept blood from, they are shooting themselves in the foot. The rule was good when tests for AIDS were primitive and had to wait for a year after exposure to pick up on the presence of HIV, but as the article pointed out, tests have advanced. They can now detect the HIV virus less than a month after exposure. So maybe making it like Tattoos and piercings, where you are banned from donating for 6 months or something, would be better. I personally know many gay men who would love to donate blood to help out, but they can't because of their sexual preferences. Also, don't you think it's interesting that gay men are barred from donating, but they don't ask about women who are lesbians? Granted it's harder, but you can still get HIV that way. |
| Micrówave 24.05.2007 13:42 |
<font color="magenta">Marial-B wrote: I mean, they're like us, just that they like people from the same sex...So do the aliens... Why don't we just ship all that tainted blood somewhere... like northern Alaska. It's way too cold to catch Aids up there. Tell 'em it's a new Starbucks flavor. |
| user name 24.05.2007 14:34 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Also, don't you think it's interesting that gay men are barred from donating, but they don't ask about women who are lesbians? Granted it's harder, but you can still get HIV that way.I don't think it's a discriminatory issue. It's an issue of the interpretation of the facts. Lesbians never really were at the forefront of HIV transmission - not nearly as much as drug users, gay men, and prostitutes (this might be a whole different story if prostitution were legal). It sounds discriminatory, but those really are the facts. The real issue is how trustworthy HIV testing of blood is. Near 100% may seem good for the aggregate population, but what happens to the one person who unfairly obtains HIV from a blood transfusion? That could lead to a massive lawsuit, for the government and all organizations involved. It's a tough decision, and it wouldn't make sense for the FDA to actively pursue discrimination against homosexual men, drug users, and prostitutes - especially since these groups don't even benefit from DONATING their blood. I in no way have formulated an opinion on this matter, by the way. I'm just setting up things for discussion. |
| Erin 24.05.2007 14:54 |
Apparently, foreign blood is tainted, too. Pieter can't donate. |
| PieterMC 24.05.2007 15:05 |
Erin wrote: Apparently, foreign blood is tainted, too. Pieter can't donate.Apparently I have a mad cow living inside of me. |
| Erin 24.05.2007 15:10 |
PieterMC wrote: Apparently I have a mad cow living inside of me.Eeek...hope you don't start foaming at the mouth one day! |
| Lisser 24.05.2007 22:16 |
So Pieter can't donate bc he's not from the US originally or bc he has worn a kilt in the past? The two times I've had the opportunity to donate blood I was turned down. Once bc I was on an antibiotic at the time for a kidney infection and the other they asked me if I hadn't eaten yet that day and I hadn't so they said I wasn't allowed to donate. I was like gee whiz, I'll be fine!! But they were not having it. Since then I've never come across an opportunity to donate. I'm not sure what my opinion is on this either "ban." My first thoughts are how dare they discriminate. Just not right given today's technology and safeguards. I'm nieve sometimes though so take that in to consideration. It doesn't sound right to me the way it's presented in that article, sounds extremely discriminatory but I could probably convinced otherwise through another point of view. I don't know. |
| Saint Jiub 24.05.2007 23:01 |
It could be argued that mates of swinging spouses should be banned from donating blood. However, this sort of discrimination toward the heterosexual majority (whether or not it is in the interest of safety) will never happen due to the political repurcussions. Actually, because the predominant majorty of people are straight, it is probably more likely that more heterosexual spouses than homosexual partners would be infected their cheating mates. Afrer all, a "semi-reliable source" on QZ once mentioned that more heterosexuals practice anal sex than homosexuals. Whether the interest of a slight improvement in safety (saving even one life?) could possibly justify discrimination is certainly debatable. In the USA climate of suing at the drop of a hat, perhaps this sort of discrimination can be "rationalized" to be politically correct. In other words ... I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. LOL |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.05.2007 08:46 |
Good points raised by MusicMan But nothing in the medical world is 100%. Nothing. People like to think medicine is easy and we have everything figured out, like childbirth. Which is why you see all those ads on TV for "Sue your doctor for causing your child's Cerebral Palsey" and the number of OBGYN's dropping at an alarming rate. The human body is almost never predictable, and therefore medicine will never be either. There are still issues of Hepititus that get through the tests they run on donated blood, and we've been able to test for that for years. I'm aware that lesbians were never at the front of the AIDS epidemic, I just wonder why whenever people say "homosexual" or "gay" they always mean men...probably because girl on girl sex is considered ok because it's not "dirty"...cultural judgements and stuff... Anyway, if they are that worried about being short on blood all of the time, which they always are, they could accept blood from gay men with these new AIDS tests. They may not be 100%, but they could classify them, after testing, as a "last resort" option. Besides, I'd like to think no one would he heartless enough to purposely donate HIV infected blood. If they are really worried about the spread of AIDS, they aught to be looking into promoting the use of Condoms and safe sex...oh wait...that means you'd have to actually educate people on how to use them, instead of the "abstinence only" campaign of scare the shit out of them so they won't have sex promoted by the government right now....how dare I suggest something that makes so much sense! I can back Erin up...no one who has been to the UK for more than 6 months can donate blood, because of all the mad cow stuff. Same thing anywhere in Europe. When I came back from a month in France they wanted to tell me I couldn't donate because I ran the risk of getting something while I was there. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.05.2007 09:16 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: If they are really worried about the spread of AIDS, they aught to be looking into promoting the use of Condoms and safe sex...oh wait...that means you'd have to actually educate people on how to use them, instead of the "abstinence only" campaign of scare the shit out of them so they won't have sex promoted by the government right now....how dare I suggest something that makes so much sense!Beautiful. |
| Mr.Jingles 25.05.2007 10:15 |
Lisser wrote: So Pieter can't donate bc he's not from the US originally or bc he has worn a kilt in the past?You see, here in America men should only be aware of "picking up the soap bar" when they're showering in a prison with a bunch of felons. In Scotland it's a different story. |
| PieterMC 25.05.2007 10:30 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:How many times have I told you not to tell anybody???Lisser wrote: So Pieter can't donate bc he's not from the US originally or bc he has worn a kilt in the past?You see, here in America men should only be aware of "picking up the soap bar" when they're showering in a prison with a bunch of felons. In Scotland it's a different story. |
| user name 25.05.2007 14:29 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Besides, I'd like to think no one would he heartless enough to purposely donate HIV infected blood.That is definitely not true. There are rare (but still very existent) cases where people who are HIV positive will intentionally try to spread the disease. This is probably due to mental issues, or due to misery enjoying company, or some business like that. Anyway, your "last resort" suggestion sounds logical. If the person is going to die anyway, you might as well extend their life - even if they have to live with HIV/AIDS. It's still a liability for the government and all involved organizations, though. I don't know how accurate these HIV tests are, but they're apparently not accurate enough. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.05.2007 17:17 |
People with AIDS need blood too, so maybe that "last resort" option could be reserved for people who already have AIDS and need blood. That would work too. As far as the test being accurate...they are very accurate, and a great improvement over the old ones they used. Of course, the FDA says it's not accurate enough...but the FDA has a history of being WAY behind the curve of things as far as medical developments go. Especially in an administration that is making it's ideological agenda primary on medical issues like stem cell research and such. Not that I'm saying you should mistrust everything the FDA says...but let's just say there are tons of medicines, both in the US and from Europe, that could be used to save countless lives, that aren't approved for US use because the FDA hasn't tested them...and they've openly said they won't test drugs that came from stem cell research and such. Even mundane stuff like sunscreen falls into the cracks. When I was in Europe, I found a sunscreen that was SPF 100...blocked UVA and UVB rays. Being as Casper-like as I am (I glow in the dark and burn inside of 10 minutes in the sun) I bought some and used it over there...I was amazed! I could be in the sun for long periods of time, and I never so much as turned pink! When I came home, I tried to buy the stuff I saw over there, but they told me I couldn't because it couldn't be shipped into the US because the main ingrediant hadn't been tested by the FDA. I asked when they were likely to get around to testing it, and they gave me the run around of "Oh, we are backlogged and we'll get to it as soon as we can." And that's just on sunscreen, which is mundane and non-controversial. Europe will probably wind up finding a cure for something like Alzheimers via stem cell research, and at this rate the FDA will continue to say "Sorry, the people with Alzheimers are screwed because we won't allow this treatment into the US because it was made by processes we don't approve of." |
| user name 25.05.2007 19:00 |
But what does very accurate mean? 99% accuracy? 99.9% accuracy? 99.99% accuracy? Even those are quite risky, if only due to sheer quantity and turnover of the blood donations. But creating an "alternate bank" would definitely be a good idea, especially if you inform the patient of all the risks beforehand. I don't understand why this hasn't been implemented. Perhaps there wouldn't be a very large demand for such a bank. |
| iron eagle 25.05.2007 20:34 |
i wasnt going to get into this but...... those who intentionally tramsmit the virus to non infected people are 'gift givers' -- so if anyone mentions to you something about giving you 'the gift' take a hike.......quickly i hear about this more with barebacking versus blood giving...but i dont doubt that it could happen.. i am not upset nor feel discriminated against at all for not being able to give blood... i suppose others are but i for one am not--**edit addition--i should also say i am not opposed to widening the ban either...the dynamics of those infected is expanding too** until the testing is 100% there have to be precautions... anyone remember a few years ago when previously tested and thought to be untainted blood actually had the virus???--- i am fine with the 'better be safe then sorry attitude'.... HIV/AIDS has been something that i have had to fear and deal with for years now.... i watched friends waste away and die and have friends now infected and trying to deal...nevermind knowing ,despite the denials, that Freddie was suffering also......the virus, the disease has touched my life tremendously if me not giving blood can help ensure someone else doesnt suffer as others dear to me have, thats a very small price to pay |
| Lisser 28.05.2007 14:07 |
iron eagle wrote: i wasnt going to get into this but...... those who intentionally tramsmit the virus to non infected people are 'gift givers' -- so if anyone mentions to you something about giving you 'the gift' take a hike.......quickly i hear about this more with barebacking versus blood giving...but i dont doubt that it could happen.. i am not upset nor feel discriminated against at all for not being able to give blood... i suppose others are but i for one am not--**edit addition--i should also say i am not opposed to widening the ban either...the dynamics of those infected is expanding too** until the testing is 100% there have to be precautions... anyone remember a few years ago when previously tested and thought to be untainted blood actually had the virus???--- i am fine with the 'better be safe then sorry attitude'.... HIV/AIDS has been something that i have had to fear and deal with for years now.... i watched friends waste away and die and have friends now infected and trying to deal...nevermind knowing ,despite the denials, that Freddie was suffering also......the virus, the disease has touched my life tremendously if me not giving blood can help ensure someone else doesnt suffer as others dear to me have, thats a very small price to payPaulie I love you. I just want you to know that I think the world of you. I'm glad you got to star in my film too!!! I need to call you and bug you soon!!! |