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

[The Diplomat]

It is best to minimize the handling of HIV blood. You don't want to be messing with a demographic of people that see the AIDS virus as a badge of honor. Just google bug chasers and gift givers if you want to know. The blood drive doesn't need any gift givers.

Oh, rip.

 

[AznTrojan]

it's not a right to donate blood..

 

[JamesRussler]

France taken to court over no-sex rule for gay blood donors

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/23/france-taken-court-no-sex-rule-gay-blood-donors/

A Frenchman has gone to the European Court of Human Rights to try and overturn rules seen by many homosexuals as discriminatory that require gay men to have no sex for a year before they can donate blood.

Mr Drelon argues in his case to the Strasbourg-based rights court that the deferral period is discriminatory on the basis of sexuality, and that it also violates his right to privacy by forcing him to reveal his sexual history.



Discuss and talk amongst yourselves....

k

 

[superpunch]

This thread is so dumb.

People get tested before they're allowed to give blood.

Doesn't HIV take like 3-6 months to show up on the tests they might use, though? I'm not a doctor so I don't know but there's gotta be a sound reason for this other than 'screw the gays'. If it just comes down to testing then why not allow IV drug users, etc? Fact is IV drug use and anal sex are easy spreaders of diseases like HIV. It's not a 'i hate gays' thing, it's just how diseases spread.

 

[superpunch]

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.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active gay and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don’t know it.

More than 8,000 self-identifying gay and bisexual men (or, as the researchers call them, MSM, for men who have sex with men) were tested by CDC workers in the 21 American cities with the highest infection rates. The gay population in Baltimore had the highest rates of HIV infection, at 38%, while Atlanta scored lowest, at 6%.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/...l-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

I don't think this is homophobia, just a safety policy based on real world risk factors.

 

[sub_thug]

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active gay and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don’t know it.

More than 8,000 self-identifying gay and bisexual men (or, as the researchers call them, MSM, for men who have sex with men) were tested by CDC workers in the 21 American cities with the highest infection rates. The gay population in Baltimore had the highest rates of HIV infection, at 38%, while Atlanta scored lowest, at 6%.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/...l-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

I don't think this is homophobia, just a safety policy based on real world risk factors.

The article is saying that roughly 1 in 10 gay/bisexual men that are sexually active have HIV and don't know it (taken from 1 in 5 sexually active gay/bisexual men have HIV, and almost half don't know it). Of that 10%, what percentage of them are monogamous or have had a small number of partners (guys who have LTRs instead of casual affairs)? Of the gay/bisexual men who are not sexually active, what percentage of them have HIV and don't know it? What are the statistics relating to gay/bisexual women? Whatever those numbers are, is that number significantly high enough to introduce that risk into the blood donation pool? I don't know the answers to those questions, particularly when weighed against the risk of not getting the blood at all. That's the direction I was going with this. I actually don't have a stance on this other than the medical community should do what's in the best interests of the patients. The politics of this issue are immaterial to me, as it's not a right to donate blood, nor do I care strongly enough about the issue for me to crusade as though it's a right.

 

[Fugazy]

The only people that should have a say in that are the donors and the blood collection services. However, I do believe that regardless of sexual orientation that proper testing of all blood should be conducted always. If a donor has a verifiable blood related disease then their blood should not be used for normal processes but still collected for potential use during critically low periods such as a natural disaster. In such condition I still believe the donor or a duly appointed rep should be notified of the issue and allowed to make the final decision on whether to role the dice or not.

The desire to save life is noble and should be pursued whenever possible and appropriate, but I strongly feel that the individual or their legally authorized rep are ultimately the authority on what will happen with ones body or what is put in it.

So it's cool to give hurricane victims AIDS?

 

[Teppodama]

So it's cool to give hurricane victims AIDS?

Did you just skip over this part?

In such condition I still believe the donor or a duly appointed rep should be notified of the issue and allowed to make the final decision on whether to role the dice or not.

Who is to say what a person may choose if imminent death is the alternative. Having the option to even make that choice is the 1st step.

 

[vengeful]

94% of new HIV cases among young men are homosexuals.

I bet the other 6% are men that are either in the closet and lying or sharing needles.

 

[vengeful]

No one has a "right" to donate blood. Any rights involved here are held by the patients, and by the blood banks who serve the patients. That is, they have a right to refuse to accept blood which they reasonably believe may be tainted with the HIV virus.

Why isn't that considered discrimination against a protected class?

 

[Fugazy]

Did you just skip over this part?

In such condition I still believe the donor or a duly appointed rep should be notified of the issue and allowed to make the final decision on whether to role the dice or not.

Who is to say what a person may choose if imminent death is the alternative. Having the option to even make that choice is the 1st step.

I'm gonna call a ninja edit on this one...

 

[TidWell]

HIV was the Gay disease, it mainly spread through Gay males in the bath houses in the early 80s, and then some super horny bisexuals on the down low guys spread it to females.

Genetic analysis historically provided some support for the Patient Zero theory, in which Dugas was believed to be part of a cluster of homosexual men who traveled frequently, were extremely sexually active, and died of AIDS at a very early stage in the epidemic.

then some of them donated blood and thats how innocent lives got contaminated like Ryan white and Arthur Ashe.

 

[Teppodama]

I'm gonna call a ninja edit on this one...

Nope that was from the original post. No ninja editing. No reason to just to try and make a point on this forum.

 

[GSP_37]

I hope the blood banks are testing each donation rather than trusting someone's word.

 

[Gandhi]

Nothing pisses me off more than gays using PRIDE name for gay stuff!

There is only one PRIDE and its in JAPAN! And nothing to do with GAYNESS!

Yup bunch a sweaty men hugging each other with ground and pound and rear naked poke.

Not gay!!!!!!!

 

[unimackpass]

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.

"There's no right to donate blood." Unless it's a gay issue, than every hipster cool kid progressive will cry foul no matter the risk to the general population.

 

[unimackpass]

The PRIDE stories my gay friends have inflicted on me so far puts me firmly in the camp of erring on the side of caution.

People have no real idea do they?

 

[salamander]

People have no real idea do they?

Not at all.

 

[BassAckwards]

idiots, what dont they understand? the purpose of donating blood is to help lives.... if their blood is tainted, then it will bring more harm than good.

 

[unimackpass]

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.

One of the first "not" progressive comments I've seen you make, virtue signalers take note.