Should It Be a Right For Promiscuous Gay Men to Donate Blood?

*Z* said:
They don't just give people blood without it being tested. This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen. Oh hey you look clean, let's take your blood and just inject it straight into someone else without testing.
Click to expand...

Well it is a ripskater thread so . . .
 
sub_thug said:
You don't get tested before you're allowed to give blood. You answer questions on a survey, and if you identify yourself as someone who has recently traveled outside the country, born in certain parts of Europe during certain years (mad cow disease threat, apparently), recent tattoo or piercing, or identified yourself as having unprotected sex with more than one partner (I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones off the top of my head), you are barred from giving blood. If you say that everything is all good, they accept the donation and then test the blood later before it's given to a patient.
Click to expand...

That, like, what I meant man.

We don't take blood from people and immediately put it into someone else it's likely tested multiple times before that happens.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
I have no idea whether there are concrete health reasons to avoid sexually active gay men donating blood, but that's the only question that matters here imo. There's no right to donate blood. If it's riskier, it may be refused. if it isn't, the n it should be accepted.
Click to expand...


Pretty much this. I also wonder about other things too; for example, I know this chinese guy who constantly says hep c is basically endemic over there.
 
This isn't a right, at least in the US (understood that this case is in the EU). I was born in Germany in the 1980s, so apparently, I am at risk of giving people Mad Cow's Disease. Virtually everyone I work with has been outside of the country within the last year, and they can't donate blood either. These agencies can be discriminatory for all sorts of medical reasons, both good and bad ones. This is ultimately a question of risk: In the face of a blood shortage (ever-present issue), what is the appropriate risk tolerance for potential donors? Unprotected sex with a lot of partners, regardless of sexual orientation, seems like unnecessary high risk. Barring homosexual people who are either not sexually active or are monogamous sounds like low risk that is worth accepting.
 
You do not get tested before you give blood. The blood is tested but from what I've read this isn't 100% foolproof for HIV because of the time frame in which the blood is often used due to demand and the incubation period of the virus. Gay men are a massive high risk group, they are something like 200 times more likely to have HIV than the rest of the population.

People's safety is more important than political correctness. Sadly the people who push these kinds of agendas don't care about inconvenient stuff like reality and consequences.
 
Meh. In general, in developed nations, if you remove the male gay population from the pool of donors, you almost entirely remove the risk of HIV-infected blood from the equation.

I'd expect the same, coming from South Africa.

Why waste the money and take the risk (even if negligible) on people who are statistically far more likelt to be disease-ridden?
 
PrinceOfPain said:
Meh. In general, in developed nations, if you remove the male gay population from the pool of donors, you almost entirely remove the risk of HIV-infected blood from the equation.

I'd expect the same, coming from South Africa.

Why waste the money and take the risk (even if negligible) on people who are statistically far more likelt to be disease-ridden?
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with that statement.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
Why waste the money and take the risk (even if negligible) on people who are statistically far more likelt to be disease-ridden?
Click to expand...

Because the red cross is constantly reporting shortages of blood donations.

Turning away non-infected potential donors during a blood shortage means someone surely could die without the donation vs. The 1 in 1.5 mil chance of being infected through transfusion.
 
It takes time for the body to develop HIV antibodies after infection. Almost all persons develop antibodies within 2 to 12 weeks, but it can take up to 6 months after infection. A positive result means antibodies to HIV were found in your body.
Click to expand...

http://www.idph.state.il.us/aids/materials/10questions.htm

I would rather they err on the side of caution.
Obviously HIV / AIDS isn't exclusive to promiscuous homosexuals, so it seems tricky to me.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
Meh. In general, in developed nations, if you remove the male gay population from the pool of donors, you almost entirely remove the risk of HIV-infected blood from the equation.

I'd expect the same, coming from South Africa.

Why waste the money and take the risk (even if negligible) on people who are statistically far more likelt to be disease-ridden?
Click to expand...

No gay blood donors sounds perfect
 
Edison Carasio said:
Red cross and plasma centers test all blood that is donated in the US as far as I know.
Click to expand...

I believe that's been the practice for some time now. Wasn't always though, I don't think.

Isn't there an amount of time between contraction of HIV and the time when it can be detected? Not sure. Just squawking really.

A good rule though, don't make it a right for them to have to accept your blood. Anyone's blood. So no, it should not be a right. I'm glad we could solve this issue.


Edit

Oh look at that. Curious so I googled.

"One recommended strategy is to get tested 2-4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after a risky exposure. Using a sensitive antigen/antibody HIV test, of those who are infected, most will test positive at 1 month; almost all will test positive at 3 months; and the rest will test positive at 6 months."
 
Edison Carasio said:
Because the red cross is constantly reporting shortages of blood donations.

Turning away non-infected potential donars during a blood shortage means someone surely could die without the donation vs. The 1 in 1.5 mil chance of being infected through transfusion.
Click to expand...

I was unclear i think. Though maybe not.
I was not suggesting forbidding gays from donating - just that the group represents a ridiculously disproportionate risk.

The last paragraph was was just intended to suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to dissuade promiscuous gay men from donating.
I think it would be silly to strongly feel otherwise.
 
SAme with needle using dope fiends. Sorry you are in a high risk group, so you cant donate blood. Same with being over seas within the prior year.
 
Johnny Mac said:
94% of new HIV cases among young men are homosexuals.
HIV-Young-Adult-Males-2011-CDC.png
Click to expand...
But, Apple just forced me to upload a gay pride watch face on my Apple Watch. I don't have to set it as my watch face, but it was part of the latest upgrade. Makes me sick to my stomach that that symbol is permanently installed on my watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
International LGBTQ-inclusive church in Cuba welcomes all in a country that once sent gay people to labor camps
Replies
8
Views
345
ringking1982
ringking1982

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,217
Messages
55,475,207
Members
174,786
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top