• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. opens door to a change in blood donation policy for gay men

Howler63 said:
The entirety of the blood doesn't matter if you get THAT ONE BAG, does it? Is that one bag marked so it can easily be thrown out? Or does it look exactly like all the other blood?

Again, why add the risk if we don't absolutely HAVE to?
Click to expand...

the only time they ever throw out blow from an entire drive site is when the tainted blood gets past the screening and testing. This hasn't happened since 2008

An individual risk assessment if done properly will not only screen out most of the 30,000 donors who are gay men newly infected with HIV, but also most of the 10,000 who are newly infected heteros and who are currently not screened out. The rest will be caught by testing. In addition to that, the red cross gets an extra 150,000 donors a year who are not infected
 
Howler63 said:
Couple of points. Homosexual make up 70% of new HIV infections. That's not a stat that I pulled out of the air.



This is the reason for the 1 years safety valve. It is a GOOD thing. Removing that safety valve is a BAD thing as it increases the likelihood of HIV infected blood getting into the supply. This is simple math.
Click to expand...

And homosexuals who use condoms or are monogamous are virtually 0% of infections. The questionnaire and testing are the safety valves ffs
 
Howler63 said:
LOL. Don't get angry, man.


The standard is safety. Homosexual men have a much higher rate of HIV infection than the general public. Thus, they have a higher risk of introducing infection into the system. Now, that being said, WHY would you want to introduce that risk?

What raise a risk factor that you DON'T HAVE to raise? That's the question.

Can you answer it without losing your mind?
Click to expand...

because 80% of homosexual men do NOT have HIV and the vast majority of those that do are auto banned from donating blood because they've been diagnosed. The rest are just assumed to have HIV under the current policy, which is crap
 
chromium said:
the only time they ever throw out blow from an entire drive site is when the tainted blood gets past the screening and testing. This hasn't happened since 2008

An individual risk assessment if done properly will not only screen out most of the 30,000 donors who are gay men newly infected with HIV, but also most of the 10,000 who are newly infected heteros and who are currently not screened out. The rest will be caught by testing. In addition to that, the red cross gets an extra 150,000 donors a year who are not infected
Click to expand...

Possibly, but WHY risk it? Is there an urgent need to bypass these safety features? If people were dying due to a lack of blood donations, I could see it. Until then, no.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: U.S. opens door to a change in blood donation policy for gay men

A big step in the right direction. It makes perfect sense to move towards individual risk assessments. I hope this moves forward and a nondiscriminatory blood donation policy comes about, one thats based in science and not fear. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

I had no knowledge that such a regulation existed. I doubt it was being enforced very much because in our current political climate we would have heard about it much sooner.

Regardless, this was an obvious good move that I think everyone left right and center can agree with.
 
chromium said:
because 80% of homosexual men do NOT have HIV and the vast majority of those that do are auto banned from donating blood because they've been diagnosed. The rest are just assumed to have HIV under the current policy, which is crap
Click to expand...

How is it crap? Isn't it always better to play it safe when dealing with HIV?
 
BrewerBob said:
I agree. Which is why individual assessment is the way to go. Or at least have a more detailed questionnaire. I completely understand why we might want to avoid donors who have had unprotected anal sex outside of a monogamous relationship in the past year as that is a high risk form of sex. But anal sex in a monogamous relationship should not be an issue. Or, maybe, anal sex with a condom. The sexual orientation itself shouldn't matter but behavior. Why should a straight man who hooks up with a different woman every weekend be able to donate but a monogamous homosexual couple can't?
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
Howler63 said:
Why don't they want to wait the 12 months again?
Click to expand...

go without sex for 12 months just to donate blood to an organization that assumes i have a deadly disease, no thx
 
Howler63 said:
How is it crap? Isn't it always better to play it safe when dealing with HIV?
Click to expand...

there's reasonable precautions in life and then there's just paranoia predicated in disdain for a particular group

actually the 80% of gay men who do not have an std have some idea of this. I know for instance if i use a condom or stay with the same guy, the risk is worth it because it's negligible. I know too that if i need a blood donation, i will not care if the blood is from a gay man because with modern testing the risk is negligible and i'm not gonna inconvenience myself or the hospital either by postponing
 
chromium said:
there's reasonable precautions in life and then there's just paranoia predicated in disdain for a particular group

actually the 80% of gay men who do not have an std have some idea of this. I know for instance if i use a condom or stay with the same guy, the risk is worth it because it's negligible. I know too that if i need a blood donation, i will not care if the blood is from a gay man because with modern testing the risk is negligible and i'm not gonna inconvenience myself or the hospital either by postponing
Click to expand...

So in the name of political correctness, you would inject a higher risk of HIV into the system.

Got it.
 
Howler63 said:
So in the name of political correctness, you would inject a higher risk of HIV into the system.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Did you think that gay marriage undermined or invalidated heterosexual marriage too?
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm in favor of whatever the scientific consensus is with regards to risk and the benefit to society. Nothing else.
Click to expand...
Yes. If we let 'politics' get in the way we have what we have now.
 
I'm searching here. Don't plasma donations and transfusions provide the same as blood donations and transfusions yet are far less riskier than transfusions?
 
Howler63 said:
Again WHY TAKE THE CHANCE?
Click to expand...

If you were in need of a blood transfusion to save your life, and blood from a gay is the only blood available, would you take it or would you prefer to die NOW?

Myself, I'd take the blood (especially since detection of HIV is so much better now than it was 30 years ago).
 
Caine said:
I had no knowledge that such a regulation existed. I doubt it was being enforced very much because in our current political climate we would have heard about it much sooner.

Regardless, this was an obvious good move that I think everyone left right and center can agree with.
Click to expand...

You dont think its being addressed because its not debated about in our political circles? Seriously?
 
Howler63 said:
So in the name of political correctness, you would inject a higher risk of HIV into the system.

Got it.
Click to expand...

i'd do it just to annoy you even more, except it's not a higher risk so i get the satisfaction of seeing you squirm at something that isn't even an issue
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You dont think its being addressed because its not debated about in our political circles? Seriously?
Click to expand...

I think that this issue wasn't handled SOONER because it wasn't debated about in our political circles, yes.

And I don't think it was debated about in our political circles because, frankly, I don't think it was actually being enforced.
 
Scrabaholic said:
If you were in need of a blood transfusion to save your life, and blood from a gay is the only blood available, would you take it or would you prefer to die NOW?

Myself, I'd take the blood (especially since detection of HIV is so much better now than it was 30 years ago).
Click to expand...

I'd take it, of course. But that's consistent with what I'm saying. If we HAVE to introduce new risks then we should. But if we don't have to, we shouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom