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

[RetiredNSmilin]

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]

I hope they win this and open the door for people like me to also donate blood who are barred.

My blood is very close to perfect since I started working out and watching my diet.
I have never had an STD, and it is very healthy.

Yet I am barred from donating blood because they asked have I ever been with a hooker?

hmmm....over 15 years in the Navy...duh...YES, I have.

I know someone, someplace, could benefit from my very healthy blood, but they do not want me to share it.

Their loss....it is O positive, so it is not all that special anyway.

Still, in a crisis, I would like to help out if I could.

 

[danarhea]

I hope they win this and open the door for people like me to also donate blood who are barred.

My blood is very close to perfect since I started working out and watching my diet.
I have never had an STD, and it is very healthy.

Yet I am barred from donating blood because they asked have I ever been with a hooker?

hmmm....over 15 years in the Navy...duh...YES, I have.

I know someone, someplace, could benefit from my very healthy blood, but they do not want me to share it.

Their loss....it is O positive, so it is not all that special anyway.

Still, in a crisis, I would like to help out if I could.

If you pass a hep c test and an aids test, I don't see that there is a problem. Actually, I believe ALL donor should have those tests done before giving blood.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

If you pass a hep c test and an aids test, I don't see that there is a problem. Actually, I believe ALL donor should have those tests done before giving blood.

agreed, and I pass any and all tests given. When I was dating, I insisted on being tested every 3 months or so, then carried the proof with me, so I had hard evidence if asked.

The last time I tried to donate blood was about five years ago. Maybe things have changed now. Then, all it took was a yes. I could understand it, if it was UNPROTECTED sex, but I had no desire to commit suicide.

I was also pretty selective. There were some skanks, I ran from. An experienced sailor like me could tell the ones to keep away from at all costs. There are certain "tells". That is also why I never once caught an STD.

There were also some ports you just drink the booze and walk along the beach. Anything else you would be taking your life in your hands. Mombasa to name one. Cochin to name another.

 

[Howler63]

When people don't have enough blood, it's usually not due to a low blood cell but to a low fluid volume. This low blood pressure leads to shock. People go in to shock after accidents, people go into shock during surgery. When someone dies due to shock like that, the cause of death is put down to the underlying factor, not due to the low blood pressure.

Now, not all deaths due to this are preventable with more blood, sometimes, you can have as much blood as you want but without a way to get it into the person they'd die anyway. So the numbers you're looking for are impossible to find. Needless to say, having blood saves millions of lives each year. And having more blood allows us to save more. It also prevents us from having to delay surgeries (which does happen). Some blood is always left over at blood banks in case of a emergency (someone bleeding to death) but leaving over that blood means that someone who otherwise could use it cannot. The delay to their surgery can cause whatever they needed their surgery for to kill them.

As for marked risk. Anyone's blood is a marked risk. Nobody is suggesting we don't screen at all. What people are saying is that gay people are at low enough risk that we can use that blood to save lives. You keep saying that we're on some kind of agenda to make gay people feel special. No, not at all. We're on an agenda to save lives. You seem to be the one on an agenda to not have gays give potentially life saving blood.

Injecting ANY additional risk without SIGNIFICANT additional gain, all in the name of political correctness, is insane. There are NO numbers that demonstrate deaths occurring due to a blood shortage because there is enough blood that it doesn't happen.
And let's be clear.
This isn't about the blood supply at all. It's about addressing (yet another) perceived slight against the homosexual community. It's about demanding 'rights' that don't exist. It's about the normalization agenda of the homosexual cabal.

 

[Howler63]

I hope they win this and open the door for people like me to also donate blood who are barred.

My blood is very close to perfect since I started working out and watching my diet.
I have never had an STD, and it is very healthy.

Yet I am barred from donating blood because they asked have I ever been with a hooker?

hmmm....over 15 years in the Navy...duh...YES, I have.

I know someone, someplace, could benefit from my very healthy blood, but they do not want me to share it.

Their loss....it is O positive, so it is not all that special anyway.

Still, in a crisis, I would like to help out if I could.

As a 22 year veteran I am precluded as well. But I understand the reasoning behind it. Better safe than sorry.

 

[danarhea]

agreed, and I pass any and all tests given. When I was dating, I insisted on being tested every 3 months or so, then carried the proof with me, so I had hard evidence if asked.

The last time I tried to donate blood was about five years ago. Maybe things have changed now. Then, all it took was a yes. I could understand it, if it was UNPROTECTED sex, but I had no desire to commit suicide.

I was also pretty selective. There were some skanks, I ran from. An experienced sailor like me could tell the ones to keep away from at all costs. There are certain "tells". That is also why I never once caught an STD.

There were also some ports you just drink the booze and walk along the beach. Anything else you would be taking your life in your hands. Mombasa to name one. Cochin to name another.

I can understand, though, why the VA would be a little antsy about blood donations. My former band leader from one of the bands I used to play for, Butch Smith, had been wounded in Vietnam. Years later he began developing hernias in his intestinal wall. The VA put a plastic mesh in him to reinforce the intestinal wall, and in doing so, gave him tainted blood. Butch eventually died from Hepatitis C.

 

[JasperL]

So if we're already seeing HIV positive donations, why add to that possibility? It's already a problem, why make the problem greater? What does society have to gain? A greater chance of spreading AIDS?

Society has a chance to gain more blood donors, and the scientific question is whether or not changing the rules would increase the risk of transmitting AIDs in the blood supply. You're obviously completely uninterested in the evidence, and are ignorant of the risks and how we mitigate them as we speak, so I don't see the point of debating this further.

 

[robertblake60]

Society has a chance to gain more blood donors, and the scientific question is whether or not changing the rules would increase the risk of transmitting AIDs in the blood supply. You're obviously completely uninterested in the evidence, and are ignorant of the risks and how we mitigate them as we speak, so I don't see the point of debating this further.

He's choosing to focus entirely on the US too and ignoring all the deaths worldwide from lack of blood.

Not that this is critical, but simple economics would also tell you that greater supply would reduce costs as well. We could surely all appreciate that.

 

[Howler63]

Society has a chance to gain more blood donors, and the scientific question is whether or not changing the rules would increase the risk of transmitting AIDs in the blood supply. You're obviously completely uninterested in the evidence, and are ignorant of the risks and how we mitigate them as we speak, so I don't see the point of debating this further.

No, you would risk the blood supply in order to assuage the 'feelings' of the homosexual community, and I would not. Fabled 'inclusiveness' isn't as important as preventing communicable disease.

 

[Howler63]

He's choosing to focus entirely on the US too and ignoring all the deaths worldwide from lack of blood.

Not that this is critical, but simple economics would also tell you that greater supply would reduce costs as well. We could surely all appreciate that.

If the rest of the world wants to use homosexuals to draw blood, good for them. We're not talking about the rest of the world. We're talking about the US blood supply. A blood supply that, pointed out in this thread, is already under threat; you would expose to even more risk.

That makes ZERO sense.

 

[robertblake60]

If the rest of the world wants to use homosexuals to draw blood, good for them. We're not talking about the rest of the world. We're talking about the US blood supply. A blood supply that, pointed out in this thread, is already under threat; you would expose to even more risk.

That makes ZERO sense.

You know that blood can last up to 6 weeks right? If the US could achieve a surplus of blood it could very well be exported to developing countries to SAVE LIVES.

There is little risk involved. Literally everything else you do in your daily life exposes you to more risk than this "tainted blood supply" story you're telling yourself.

 

[robertblake60]

If the rest of the world wants to use homosexuals to draw blood, good for them. We're not talking about the rest of the world. We're talking about the US blood supply. A blood supply that, pointed out in this thread, is already under threat; you would expose to even more risk.

That makes ZERO sense.

Do think that a bad unit of blood has the ability to ruin all the other units of blood in the blood supply? You understand that they are kept in separate bags right? That blood isn't all put into a giant tank and mixed together until needed?

 

[JasperL]

That makes no sense. You want to relax safety standards, that effect us all, for some politically correct idea of homosexual equality?

Why?

Impressive - two straw men in one short sentence.

 

[Howler63]

You know that blood can last up to 6 weeks right? If the US could achieve a surplus of blood it could very well be exported to developing countries to SAVE LIVES.

There is little risk involved. Literally everything else you do in your daily life exposes you to more risk than this "tainted blood supply" story you're telling yourself.

Really? Adding a risk factor like this:

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC


And there's no risk? Perhaps you don't understand what the term 'risk' means?

 

[Howler63]

Do think that a bad unit of blood has the ability to ruin all the other units of blood in the blood supply? You understand that they are kept in separate bags right? That blood isn't all put into a giant tank and mixed together until needed?

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?

 

[JasperL]

No, you would risk the blood supply in order to assuage the 'feelings' of the homosexual community, and I would not. Fabled 'inclusiveness' isn't as important as preventing communicable disease.

OK, present your evidence that an arbitrary wait period of a year, that is discovered via a questionnaire, is superior to, inferior to, or the same as an individual risk assessment?

Obviously you have none, haven't given it much thought even, and haven't once addressed the actual question in a dozen or more posts on this issue.

 

[Howler63]

Impressive - two straw men in one short sentence.

First, disallowing homosexuals to give blood IS a safety standard. Secondly, if not for some politically correct bull****, WHY would you want to risk infected blood?

(Perhaps you don't understand what strawman means?)

 

[Howler63]

OK, present your evidence that an arbitrary wait period of a year, that is discovered via a questionnaire, is superior to, inferior to, or the same as an individual risk assessment?

Obviously you have none, haven't given it much thought even, and haven't once addressed the actual question in a dozen or more posts on this issue.

Again, the wait period and IRA are irrelevant to the pool from which you pull candidates. The current pool of blood donor candidates has a MUCH LOWER RISK of HIV than a pool that included homosexuals due to the fact that homosexuals account for a STAGGERING number of current and NEW HIV cases. The testing come AFTER you establish a pool of donors. You want to START with a clean a pool as possible.

Now you tell me, WHY would you want to inject a higher risk of HIV into the blood supply donor pool?

 

[robertblake60]

Really? Adding a risk factor like this:

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC


And there's no risk? Perhaps you don't understand what the term 'risk' means?

I can't help but laugh.

You know this blood is tested and bad blood is removed at a HIGHLY (albeit not 100%) rate. I'm saying that this testing eliminates almost all of the risk. It lowers the risk down to levels that are below the threshold of you even being able to comprehend the numbers. You accept more risk in everything else in your life and you don't even think twice about it.

You don't like this because you don't like homosexuals (at least that's what I'm gathering).

 

[Howler63]

I can't help but laugh.

You know this blood is tested and bad blood is removed at a HIGHLY (albeit not 100%) rate. I'm saying that this testing eliminates almost all of the risk. It lowers the risk down to levels that are below the threshold of you even being able to comprehend the numbers. You accept more risk in everything else in your life and you don't even think twice about it.

You don't like this because you don't like homosexuals (at least that's what I'm gathering).

If the rate is already "not 100%" why inject risk that takes it EVEN FURTHER AWAY?

As to 'liking' or 'not liking' homosexuals, this isn't about homosexuals. It's about a clean, safe blood supply. And injecting unnecessary risk into it.

Now again, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RISK IT?

 

[robertblake60]

Now again, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RISK IT?

Save lives (worldwide). Improve healthcare. Reduce expenses.



If it's only about risk, then tell me how much more likely it is for HIV blood to get into the pool. I'm guessing you don't care.

 

[JasperL]

Again, the wait period and IRA are irrelevant to the pool from which you pull candidates. The current pool of blood donor candidates has a MUCH LOWER RISK of HIV than a pool that included homosexuals due to the fact that homosexuals account for a STAGGERING number of current and NEW HIV cases. The testing come AFTER you establish a pool of donors. You want to START with a clean a pool as possible.

Now you tell me, WHY would you want to inject a higher risk of HIV into the blood supply donor pool?

OK, so you have no evidence and haven't thought about the issue at all. The current pool includes homosexuals, and they're allowed to give blood if they haven't had sex within a year.

And the proposed changes ask for evidence pro or con on the changes. That is the point of the announcement. If you have any actual scientific or evidence based foundation for your opinions, the thing to do is respond to the request for comment. The point and the goal is to increase the pool WITHOUT injecting a higher risk of HIV or any other disease into the blood supply.

 

[Howler63]

Save lives (worldwide). Improve healthcare. Reduce expenses.



If it's only about risk, then tell me how much more likely it is for HIV blood to get into the pool. I'm guessing you don't care.

1: The world has it's own blood supply, we're concerned about the US here.
2: Show me any cases in which a lack of blood has caused a degradation of healthcare.
3: The added risk factors would INCREASE COSTS not lower them.

As to how much more HIV would get in? Who knows? How good would the testing be? How quick could tainted blood be recalled? You're already admitted that the current system isn't '100%', so how much lower are you willing to take it?

The increased risk does NOT outweigh the benefits.

 

[Howler63]

OK, so you have no evidence and haven't thought about the issue at all. The current pool includes homosexuals, and they're allowed to give blood if they haven't had sex within a year.

And the proposed changes ask for evidence pro or con on the changes. That is the point of the announcement. If you have any actual scientific or evidence based foundation for your opinions, the thing to do is respond to the request for comment. The point and the goal is to increase the pool WITHOUT injecting a higher risk of HIV or any other disease into the blood supply.

I've thought about the issue as much as you have. You want evidence? What is more, 1 or 0? Which is higher? That's all the evidence required. Additional risk is ADDITIONAL. More than NOW. What part of that are you missing?

I don't want to inject any more risk than we have now. Why would YOU want to?

 

[robertblake60]

1: The world has it's own blood supply, we're concerned about the US here.
2: Show me any cases in which a lack of blood has caused a degradation of healthcare.
3: The added risk factors would INCREASE COSTS not lower them.

As to how much more HIV would get in? Who knows? How good would the testing be? How quick could tainted blood be recalled? You're already admitted that the current system isn't '100%', so how much lower are you willing to take it?

The increased risk does NOT outweigh the benefits.

1. YOU'RE concerned with just the US. Some of us like to consider the welfare of the world population. I'm a nurse by trade and, I don't know, saving lives (any lives) is pretty important to me.

2. Reschedule surgeries as an example degrades the quality of healthcare. It may not degrade the quality of the result of the surgery, but it makes the entire healthcare system run more inefficiently which degrades the quality.

3. How do you figure that? You can't even begin to know that until you know what the increased risk factor is. Experts predict that the increased risk is negligible. Do you have any evidence to refute that, or is it just a gut feeling?