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

[Howler63]

1. YOU'RE considered 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?

1: This law only pertains to America.

2: Do you have any stats on how often that happens? If ever?

3: It stands to reason that if you're injecting an increased RISK then you must increase TESTING procedures to counter that risk.

 

[JasperL]

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?

Which approach is 1 and which approach is 0, and can I see your work?

You're asserting the change introduces additional risk as if that's a given and it's just not. If you have evidence that changing the current protocols introduces added risk, please document them and how you determined this and write the FDA.

And of course neither I nor the FDA nor anyone else involved in the day to day workings of the U.S. blood supply want to introduce more risk. It's a BS straw man you keep repeating with every single response and it's getting tiresome. I might as well keep demanding why YOU want PEOPLE TO DIE!! from LACK OF BLOOD!!! Of course I know you don't want that and I respect you enough not to assume you do, but you obviously (I guess) aren't willing to show the same respect, and so keep insisting the rest of us are willing for people to DIE just to serve some social agenda. It's BS, and there's no need to continue this discussion if that's how you want to handle it.

eace

 

[robertblake60]

1: This law only pertains to America.

2: Do you have any stats on how often that happens? If ever?

3: It stands to reason that if you're injecting an increased RISK then you must increase TESTING procedures to counter that risk.

1. Right, but again, surplus blood can be EXPORTED.

2. During one study period of 1590 patients, 482 surgeries of got cancelled same day, and 20 of them were for 'misc reasons' including lack of blood. (Reasons for Cancellation of Cases on the Day of Surgery?A Prospective Study) There are about 100,000,000 surgeries per year. We don't know of the 'misc reasons' what the exact number is due to lack of available blood, but even if we say it's only 1% instead of the 4.2% then that's still 1,000,000 surgeries a year being rescheduled.

3. I would imagine that the current testing procedure is more than effective enough (since it's catching 99.99999999999% of all the HIV infected blood today). No need to increase the procedures beyond what is already being done on each and every donation.

 

[Howler63]

Which approach is 1 and which approach is 0, and can I see your work?

You're asserting the change introduces additional risk as if that's a given and it's just not. If you have evidence that changing the current protocols introduces added risk, please document them and how you determined this and write the FDA.

And of course neither I nor the FDA nor anyone else involved in the day to day workings of the U.S. blood supply want to introduce more risk. It's a BS straw man you keep repeating with every single response and it's getting tiresome. I might as well keep demanding why YOU want PEOPLE TO DIE!! from LACK OF BLOOD!!! Of course I know you don't want that and I respect you enough not to assume you do, but you obviously (I guess) aren't willing to show the same respect, and so keep insisting the rest of us are willing for people to DIE just to serve some social agenda. It's BS, and there's no need to continue this discussion if that's how you want to handle it.

eace

Let's say you have a disease. Let's call it...HIV. Now, if you permit a group of people with a LOW representation of that disease to give blood, you have an inherent risk of infecting the system with that disease. Now let's say you open the system to a group of people with a HIGH representation of that disease. You have now INCREASED the risk of introducing HIV into the blood supply.

And saying you don't 'want' to introduce more risk is irrelevant. YOU ARE INTRODUCING MORE RISK WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT. The question becomes ... WHY?

 

[robertblake60]

The question becomes ... WHY?

Save lives. Improve healthcare. Reduce expenses.

We've covered this.

 

[Howler63]

1. Right, but again, surplus blood can be EXPORTED.

2. During one study period of 1590 patients, 482 surgeries of got cancelled same day, and 20 of them were for 'misc reasons' including lack of blood. (Reasons for Cancellation of Cases on the Day of Surgery?A Prospective Study) There are about 100,000,000 surgeries per year. We don't know of the 'misc reasons' what the exact number is due to lack of available blood, but even if we say it's only 1% instead of the 4.2% then that's still 1,000,000 surgeries a year being rescheduled.

3. I would imagine that the current testing procedure is more than effective enough (since it's catching 99.99999999999% of all the HIV infected blood today). No need to increase the procedures beyond what is already being done on each and every donation.

1: I don't care about exports. If you want to label homosexual blood 'For Export Only' fine by me.

2: These are ELECTIVE surgeries. And it was 4.2 % of 30% for 'misc' reasons, so what percent of that percent of a percent was actually over blood availability? Methinks a tiny, TINY fraction. And ZERO life threatening cases.

3: Again, you are talking about adding a larger pool of potential HIV exposed donors. Common sense begs that this will REQUIRE more stringent testing. To do less would be irresponsible to say the least.

Think about it....you're proposing to introduce a higher risk of a life threatening disease...for no real reason. It isn't necessary. One wonders why it's even being talked about at all if not for political reasons.

Gay men outraged over continued ban on blood donation - CNN.com

And it's ONLY political reasons.

 

[ludin]

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]

HIV in the United States | Statistics Overview | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC

Gay and bisexual menb are the population most affected by HIV. In 2014:
•Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% (29,418) of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses.
•Black/African Americanc gay and bisexual men accounted for the largest number of estimated HIV diagnoses (11,201), followed by white gay and bisexual men (9,008).


yea northing to worry about at all
:roll:

That in general the explosion of STD's has been huge lately.

 

[robertblake60]

I'm done with this. It's just going around and around in circles.


I'm content with knowing that science will eventually win out here.

 

[Howler63]

Save lives. Improve healthcare. Reduce expenses.

We've covered this.

It doesn't do any of those things.

Lives are not being lost, healthcare isn't suffering, and it'll actually cost more.

Again...why?

 

[Howler63]

I'm done with this. It's just going around and around in circles.


I'm content with knowing that science will eventually win out here.

We can only hope it does and the ban remains in place.

 

[robertblake60]

We can only hope it does and the ban remains in place.

You're already losing that one....

FDA lifts lifetime ban on gay men donating blood - CNN.com

 

[JasperL]

Let's say you have a disease. Let's call it...HIV. Now, if you permit a group of people with a LOW representation of that disease to give blood, you have an inherent risk of infecting the system with that disease. Now let's say you open the system to a group of people with a HIGH representation of that disease. You have now INCREASED the risk of introducing HIV into the blood supply.

And saying you don't 'want' to introduce more risk is irrelevant. YOU ARE INTRODUCING MORE RISK WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT. The question becomes ... WHY?

Why do you want people to die from lack of blood? WHY would you want that?

And one more time - if you have evidence that changing the rules introduces more risk, then write the FDA and outline your evidence. You asserting it without evidence doesn't do ****. Homosexuals can already give blood, right now, today. So that high risk group is included in the donor pool. The question is whether or not the arbitrary 1 year time limit serves a valid purpose, and whether changing that arbitrary criteria to a more tailored individual risk assessment would increase, decrease, or not materially affect the risk of a tainted blood supply.

For pages now you've completely ignored the core issue, assumed an answer that is not anywhere in evidence, then accused anyone even willing to consider the change of willing to let YOU DIE FROM AIDS to serve the homosexual AGENDA! Etc.

To be clear, I have no f'ing idea whether the change will increase or decrease the risk. We have scientists, experts, people on the front lines, people with intimate knowledge of the testing protocols, their shortcomings, the shortcomings of the questionnaires, etc. and those folks will weigh in on the proposed changes and we might or might not change our criteria. Those of us 'supporting' the proposal are saying no more than "let the science work, and if the science demonstrates the arbitrary exclusion of all practicing homosexuals does NOT serve a legitimate purpose, change the rules. If it DOES serve a legitimate purpose, keep the damn rules where they are."

But, again, since you can't seem to avoid attributing bad motives to those who disagree, why do you want people to DIE from lack of blood!!???!!?? WHY!?

 

[JasperL]

1: I don't care about exports. If you want to label homosexual blood 'For Export Only' fine by me.

2: These are ELECTIVE surgeries. And it was 4.2 % of 30% for 'misc' reasons, so what percent of that percent of a percent was actually over blood availability? Methinks a tiny, TINY fraction. And ZERO life threatening cases.

3: Again, you are talking about adding a larger pool of potential HIV exposed donors. Common sense begs that this will REQUIRE more stringent testing. To do less would be irresponsible to say the least.

100% of donated blood is already tested, for HIV and a slew of other diseases. I'm not a math major, but I am not aware of a percentage higher than 100%. Can they test 110% of all blood donated?

So, common sense and a basic knowledge of current testing begs that this will have no effect on the already 100% testing coverage.

Think about it....you're proposing to introduce a higher risk of a life threatening disease...for no real reason. It isn't necessary. One wonders why it's even being talked about at all if not for political reasons.

Why do you want people to die from lack of blood? WHY?

And it's ONLY political reasons.

Your opposition is based ONLY on homophobia and irrational fear of the gays!



See, this straw man stuff is easy....

 

[Howler63]

You're already losing that one....

FDA lifts lifetime ban on gay men donating blood - CNN.com

I'm not losing anything. We all are.

 

[Howler63]

Why do you want people to die from lack of blood? WHY would you want that?

And one more time - if you have evidence that changing the rules introduces more risk, then write the FDA and outline your evidence. You asserting it without evidence doesn't do ****. Homosexuals can already give blood, right now, today. So that high risk group is included in the donor pool. The question is whether or not the arbitrary 1 year time limit serves a valid purpose, and whether changing that arbitrary criteria to a more tailored individual risk assessment would increase, decrease, or not materially affect the risk of a tainted blood supply.

For pages now you've completely ignored the core issue, assumed an answer that is not anywhere in evidence, then accused anyone even willing to consider the change of willing to let YOU DIE FROM AIDS to serve the homosexual AGENDA! Etc.

To be clear, I have no f'ing idea whether the change will increase or decrease the risk. We have scientists, experts, people on the front lines, people with intimate knowledge of the testing protocols, their shortcomings, the shortcomings of the questionnaires, etc. and those folks will weigh in on the proposed changes and we might or might not change our criteria. Those of us 'supporting' the proposal are saying no more than "let the science work, and if the science demonstrates the arbitrary exclusion of all practicing homosexuals does NOT serve a legitimate purpose, change the rules. If it DOES serve a legitimate purpose, keep the damn rules where they are."

But, again, since you can't seem to avoid attributing bad motives to those who disagree, why do you want people to DIE from lack of blood!!???!!?? WHY!?

Again, the one year safety valve is just that for safety. Why would anyone in their right mind want to bypass such a valve? Oh, and NO ONE Is dying from lack of blood.

 

[Howler63]

100% of donated blood is already tested, for HIV and a slew of other diseases. I'm not a math major, but I am not aware of a percentage higher than 100%. Can they test 110% of all blood donated?

So, common sense and a basic knowledge of current testing begs that this will have no effect on the already 100% testing coverage.



Why do you want people to die from lack of blood? WHY?



Your opposition is based ONLY on homophobia and irrational fear of the gays!



See, this straw man stuff is easy....

If 50 = 100% and you add ten more then 60=100%. Which means MORE testing as there is MORE to test.

No one is dying from lack of blood.

You support is based ONLY on your politically correct assumption that its some sort of discrimination.

The ONLY straw man here...is yours.

 

[JasperL]

Again, the one year safety valve is just that for safety. Why would anyone in their right mind want to bypass such a valve?

Because it's an arbitrary standard with little in the way of scientific justification and may not work better and could be in fact worse than an individual risk assessment. That is the issue for which the FDA has requested comment, from people informed by scientific evidence.

Oh, and NO ONE Is dying from lack of blood.

LMMFAO, you cannot seem to get it. No one wants to increase the risk of HIV being spread by the blood supply, I've stated as much many times, but that doesn't stop you from alleging it with every damn response.

So, again, why do you want people to die from lack of blood? Why?

 

[Howler63]

Because it's an arbitrary standard with little in the way of scientific justification and may not work better and could be in fact worse than an individual risk assessment. That is the issue for which the FDA has requested comment, from people informed by scientific evidence.



LMMFAO, you cannot seem to get it. No one wants to increase the risk of HIV being spread by the blood supply, I've stated as much many times, but that doesn't stop you from alleging it with every damn response.

So, again, why do you want people to die from lack of blood? Why?

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?

 

[JasperL]

If 50 = 100% and you add ten more then 60=100%. Which means MORE testing as there is MORE to test.

So, if more blood is donated, there is more blood to be tested. Brilliant observation but it's irrelevant to the discussion. We frequently desperately need more blood donated, but by your metric, that's a bad thing because it means more blood has to be tested which increases costs. Of course, the cost of testing is outweighed many times by the life saving benefits of donated blood, so your point is a bit confusing.

No one is dying from lack of blood.

Says you, so the question still stands, why do you WANT people to die from lack of blood?

You support is based ONLY on your politically correct assumption that its some sort of discrimination.

And your opposition is ONLY on your homophobia.

The ONLY straw man here...is yours.

LOL....

I don't want to increase the risk of HIV. My support is for the scientific process to work, not for the proposed change, and if we can change the protocol to bring in more donors without affecting the risk profile, I'm all for it. I'll let the experts with actual evidence inform this decision and trust those involved day to day with this issue to make the right decision. If you can't accept those motives, that's your problem and your homophobia, not mine.

 

[Howler63]

So, if more blood is donated, there is more blood to be tested. Brilliant observation but it's irrelevant to the discussion. We frequently desperately need more blood donated, but by your metric, that's a bad thing because it means more blood has to be tested which increases costs. Of course, the cost of testing is outweighed many times by the life saving benefits of donated blood, so your point is a bit confusing.



Says you, so the question still stands, why do you WANT people to die from lack of blood?



And your opposition is ONLY on your homophobia.



LOL....

I don't want to increase the risk of HIV. My support is for the scientific process to work, not for the proposed change, and if we can change the protocol to bring in more donors without affecting the risk profile, I'm all for it. I'll let the experts with actual evidence inform this decision and trust those involved day to day with this issue to make the right decision. If you can't accept those motives, that's your problem and your homophobia, not mine.

LOL...the straw man here is my supposed 'homophobia'. This has nothing to do with homosexuals...just their higher than normal risk for infection. The blood supply is very important and we need to protect it. Not introduce riskier donations into it. Again, the system is now stable, safe, and adequate. Are there occasional shortages? Sure, especially in summer. But even still, no one has died due to a lack of blood. So why would anyone want to fix what obviously isn't broken?

 

[JasperL]

LOL. Don't get angry, man.

I'm just parroting you, not being angry. Why get angry at arguments that are nothing but BS straw men over and over?

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?

I don't want to increase the risk of HIV in the blood supply. Why do you want people to die from lack of blood?

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

I don't. Why do you want people to die from lack of blood. That's the question.....

Can you answer it without losing your mind?

Sure, I can and have many times. You choose to ignore those answers because it doesn't feed your homophobia agenda. :roll:

Can you answer why you want people to die from lack of blood?

/my part of this debate

 

[JasperL]

LOL...the straw man here is my supposed 'homophobia'. This has nothing to do with homosexuals...just their higher than normal risk for infection. The blood supply is very important and we need to protect it. Not introduce riskier donations into it. Again, the system is now stable, safe, and adequate. Are there occasional shortages? Sure, especially in summer. But even still, no one has died due to a lack of blood. So why would anyone want to fix what obviously isn't broken?

I said I was done, but I'll quit by quoting myself, which you ignored of course because you apparently don't want to or aren't capable of having a rational discussion.

"I don't want to increase the risk of HIV. My support is for the scientific process to work, not for the proposed change, and if we can change the protocol to bring in more donors without affecting the risk profile, I'm all for it. I'll let the experts with actual evidence inform this decision and trust those involved day to day with this issue to make the right decision."

 

[Howler63]

I don't want to increase the risk of HIV in the blood supply. Why do you want people to die from lack of blood?

Then why suggest it?

I don't. Why do you want people to die from lack of blood. That's the question.....

I'm not advocating any change to the blood supply, you are. So suggesting that my desire to KEEP it clean is comparable to your desire to infect it is inconsistent.

Sure, I can and have many times. You choose to ignore those answers because it doesn't feed your homophobia agenda. :roll:

You've not once said WHY you would want to introduce greater risk factors. You deny the risk factors even exist.

Can you answer why you want people to die from lack of blood?

I don't. The blood supply is fine as is.

 

[Howler63]

I said I was done, but I'll quit by quoting myself, which you ignored of course because you apparently don't want to or aren't capable of having a rational discussion.

"I don't want to increase the risk of HIV. My support is for the scientific process to work, not for the proposed change, and if we can change the protocol to bring in more donors without affecting the risk profile, I'm all for it. I'll let the experts with actual evidence inform this decision and trust those involved day to day with this issue to make the right decision."

If you support abandoning the safety restrictions on homosexual blood donations, a group that has the highest HIV infection rate in America, then you are IN FACT advocating for increasing the risk to the blood supply.

That is a fact.

 

[JasperL]

If you support abandoning the safety restrictions on homosexual blood donations, a group that has the highest HIV infection rate in America, then you are IN FACT advocating for increasing the risk to the blood supply.

That is a fact.

LOL, that's either expert level trolling or an amazing display of ignorance about the issue at hand AND a complete disregard for everything I've said on this thread. :roll: