Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > You suffer because blood banks are anti-gay

You suffer because blood banks are anti-gay
Thread Tools
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 10:45 AM
 
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=77204

Why are certain peoples "imaginary" rights more importing than the potential to save lives?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 10:53 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=77204

Why are certain peoples "imaginary" rights more importing than the potential to save lives?
bigotry often drains people of common sense.
There are tests that can be easily performed on blood after it is drawn to see if it is ok to use.
the better question would have been "are you HIV positive?". Someone can contract AIDs or any bloodborne disease through a variety of vectors. Straight people have AIDs, the disease itself is not as bigoted as the people who fear it.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
bigotry often drains people of common sense.
There are tests that can be easily performed on blood after it is drawn to see if it is ok to use.


At what cost? Why is it biggotry? The majority of people with Aids are gay.


the better question would have been "are you HIV positive?". Someone can contract AIDs or any bloodborne disease through a variety of vectors. Straight people have AIDs, the disease itself is not as bigoted as the people who fear it. [/B]
What? Most people, if they knew they were HIV positive, wouldn't give blood. That is ridiculous.

So instead of minimilizing risk, you are in favor of raising the cost to blood banks?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:19 AM
 
The cause in transferring the AIDs virus is the type of sex itself, namely anal sex. Now, most males that I know who are heterosexual do practice, or occasionally enjoy, anal sex with whichever female they're dating. This is the question that needs to be asked, not whether you're homosexual or have engaged in sex with another man. Anal sex, whether hetero- or homo, is going to place a person at higher risk. It may even be worse for heteros- because of the feeling of false security, and because some people I know practice it to help eliminate the possibility of pregnancy.

Sure, some ignorant people believe that gay men are at risk because they seem to be more promiscuous. In this day and age, that's BS. Some of the biggest "run arounds" I've seen lately are 16-30 year-old women. Again, it all comes down to education.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:27 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
At what cost? Why is it biggotry? The majority of people with Aids are gay.
[/B]
Got anything to back that up?

And then, I really don't get why they even bother to ask that. Every donation is screened for HIV. The screening process is IIRC 99.9% accurate and the 0.1% is due to human errors.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:37 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
The cause in transferring the AIDs virus is the type of sex itself, namely anal sex.
The falseness of that myth is the reason why HIV infection is on the rise world-wide, among HETEROsexuals (especially among teens, who seem to think that AIDS was something some gay people had some problems with fifteen years ago).

Oh, and in Africa, the VAST majority of HIV+ people are NOT gay.

Oh, and also the VAST majority of gay people are NOT HIV+.

Duh.

-s*
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:40 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:


At what cost? Why is it biggotry? The majority of people with Aids are gay.
What? Most people, if they knew they were HIV positive, wouldn't give blood. That is ridiculous.
So instead of minimilizing risk, you are in favor of raising the cost to blood banks? [/B]
You may not know, but the blood is automatically tested anyways, in all cases, therefore the questions are outrageously superfluous and prejudicial.

The real question is, would you rather rely on self-reporting of the donor or actual medical testing of the blood before it is transfused into your body? would you feel more comfortable knowing any high-risk group (IV drug users, etc, etc.) who could lie that they aren't would mean their blood WOULDN"T be tested?

No, that's madness. Test ALL blood samples is the way to go, and since it IS the way its done now, there's no need to inquire about the donor's lifestyle.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:47 AM
 
Why would they turn down potential blood stores if they test it anyway?
     
Meneldil
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:51 AM
 
Any blood to blood contact will do it, as will contact with several other body fluids. Oral sex when you have an abscessed tooth, for example. This is why you shouldn't brush your teeth or floss in the hour or so before engaging in oral sex - small cuts often occur on your gums when you brush. Anal sex has a high risk because insufficient lubrication can result in abrasions and more seriously, small tears.

I think that the questions need to be revised. I've lied three times to donate blood, but only after I've had an HIV test following a period of celibacy. Also, screening for HIV is already done - that policy should stay in place no matter who is allowed to donate. if nothing else, there are probably some twisted people out there who would do it on purpose.

And dcolton, why do you say 'imaginary' rights? I agree the ability to volunteer to be stuck with a needle is not on my list of priorities, but I don't agree they have a baseless argument. Outdated questions like that can't help the stereotype that only gay men have to worry about AIDS.
--
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 11:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The falseness of that myth is the reason why HIV infection is on the rise world-wide, among HETEROsexuals (especially among teens, who seem to think that AIDS was something some gay people had some problems with fifteen years ago).

Oh, and in Africa, the VAST majority of HIV+ people are NOT gay.

Oh, and also the VAST majority of gay people are NOT HIV+.

Duh.

-s*
Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? Anal sex DOES increase the risk of HIV infection, because of the higher risk of tearing and bleeding.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Meneldil
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
Why would they turn down potential blood stores if they test it anyway?
Well, I suspect the policy was implemented when they knew much less about HIV, and tests were more costly and less accurate. I wasn't conscious to such issues then, but I'd bet fears over HIV in the 1980s had something to do with it. Given that we know more about HIV and the risk factors, I think we ought to revise the questions, and stress if you're not sure to please take the option of anonymously ordering your blood to be disposed of.
--
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:02 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:

At what cost? Why is it biggotry? The majority of people with Aids are gay.
I don't know about those who have it now, but certainly the majority of new cases are from male-to-male sex. At least according to the CDC. 2002 was the latest that I saw:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

I think the issue is moot due to the magnitude of the circumstances if a mistaken transmission is made -- there have to be lots of questions and screens and tests because there are some folks out there in denial. The real question is: why should the Red Cross be responsible for folks who can't control their risky behaviour, gay or straight?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
Why would they turn down potential blood stores if they test it anyway?
well, because they're trying to eliminate samples that would be positive for blood born diseases....

A: if person honestly self reports they have HIV, hepatitis or similar, there is no need to bother drawing the blood. (Note this is different from saying you're a homosexual. Not all homosexuals have blood-borne diseases.) BLOOD NOT DRAWN, NOT USED.

B: if person dishonestly self reports they DO NOT have HIV, hepatitis or similar, the blood will be drawn, but the medical screening test will filter out the blood that tests positive for blood borne diseases. BLOOD NOT USED.

A is a first step in screening, the medical test (B) is the second step.

the problem with the question about lifestyle for A is that it DOESN"T correctly screen the applicant. The question should be whether the donor is aware of having any bloodborne disease, not whether they are in a risk group. We are ALL at risk for AIDs, a disease does not discriminate based on lifestyle. Therefore, asking about risk group behavior in and of itself is superfluous.
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oh, and in Africa, the VAST majority of HIV+ people are NOT gay.
That's why the Red Cross also does not accept blood from people that have lived or spent any time in certain parts of Africa. There are questions about that during the screening also. So they are covering other bases too. The Red Cross is not just showing irrational fear about gays. Yes they do test all of the blood but there is such a thing as a false negative result.

Unless you have some data on false positive probabilities, infection rates among certain groups, impact on supply based on excluding certain groups and can quantify the risk versus benifits don't simply dismiss this as discrimination.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:04 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? Anal sex DOES increase the risk of HIV infection, because of the higher risk of tearing and bleeding.
I think the confusion lies in your first post which reads as saying anal sex is the ONLY cause of blood to blood contact.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Meneldil:
Well, I suspect the policy was implemented when they knew much less about HIV, and tests were more costly and less accurate. I wasn't conscious to such issues then, but I'd bet fears over HIV in the 1980s had something to do with it. Given that we know more about HIV and the risk factors, I think we ought to revise the questions, and stress if you're not sure to please take the option of anonymously ordering your blood to be disposed of.
Good point.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Montezuma58:
....don't simply dismiss this as discrimination.
I can and I have, my choice on what I dismiss.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
Why would they turn down potential blood stores if they test it anyway?
Minimize risk and human error.

Everyone can believe the spin that gays don't make-up the vast majority of AIDs victims in the US - but it simply is not true. You can try to confuse the issue by including race, demographics, drug use...it doesn't matter. When it comes down to it...the MAJORITY of AIDS' victims in the US are gay males. CDC report:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr140...anceReport.pdf
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:12 PM
 
"We are ALL at risk for AIDs, a disease does not discriminate based on lifestyle."

^ that's totally incorrect.

*Only* sexually active mofos are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

The rest of us are OK.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"We are ALL at risk for AIDs, a disease does not discriminate based on lifestyle."

^ that's totally incorrect.

*Only* sexually active mofos are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

The rest of us are OK.
errr...no. You can be a virgin and contract AIDs.
     
Meneldil
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:16 PM
 
Originally posted by finboy:
I don't know about those who have it now, but certainly the majority of new cases are from male-to-male sex. At least according to the CDC. 2002 was the latest that I saw:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

I think the issue is moot due to the magnitude of the circumstances if a mistaken transmission is made -- there have to be lots of questions and screens and tests because there are some folks out there in denial. The real question is: why should the Red Cross be responsible for folks who can't control their risky behaviour, gay or straight?
That page doesn't list new cases - it says it lists cumulative cases through December 2002. Male to male sexual contact is still the highest total number, but the heterosexual contact category is growing quickly.

Just an initial search - in 1994, the CDC stated heterosexuals had the highest rate of transmission. The link below is just the first thing I found.

http://www.righto.com/theories/highest_risk.html
--
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
errr...no. You can be a virgin and contract AIDs.




You said "Lifestyle", Lerk.

I said you were wrong.

And I'm still right.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:17 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Minimize risk and human error.

Everyone can believe the spin that gays don't make-up the vast majority of AIDs victims in the US - but it simply is not true. You can try to confuse the issue by including race, demographics, drug use...it doesn't matter. When it comes down to it...the MAJORITY of AIDS' victims in the US are gay males. CDC report:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr140...anceReport.pdf
I think you're missing the point that it doesn't matter.
Self-reporting of a lifestyle that is discriminated against is not a good way to screen blood anyways. People have a REASON not to disclose they're gay, because others will discriminate against them.
People are not always honest but more importantly, risk groups are not the only groups that have the disease.
Therefore, its a superfluous method of screening the blood.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:17 PM
 
Doesn't the red cross have a responsibility to provide clean, uninfected blood?
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"We are ALL at risk for AIDs, a disease does not discriminate based on lifestyle."

^ that's totally incorrect.

*Only* sexually active mofos are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

The rest of us are OK.
Wrong

but


"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You said "Lifestyle", Lerk.
not sure I understand the nature of your distinction.
Being celibate can also be a lifestyle.
Being an IV drug user can also be a lifestyle.

All that is required is exposure from the disease to the bloodstream. Sex is not a requirement.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think you're missing the point that it doesn't matter.
Self-reporting of a lifestyle that is discriminated against is not a good way to screen blood anyways. People have a REASON not to disclose they're gay, because others will discriminate against them.
People are not always honest but more importantly, risk groups are not the only groups that have the disease.
Therefore, its a superfluous method of screening the blood.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. Gays are a high risk group for aids - nothing more, nothing less. To say that gays don't discolose their lifestyle choice because of discrimiation is ridiculous. And to not disclose this is as irresponsible as their lifestyle. If that is the case, why are we debating same sex marriages?

If one person contracts HIV from a blood transfusion...that is one person too much. A person should not be handed a death sentence because he/ she needed a pint of blood.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not sure I understand the nature of your distinction.
Being celibate can also be a lifestyle.
Being an IV drug user can also be a lifestyle.

All that is required is exposure from the disease to the bloodstream. Sex is not a requirement.
My lifestyle prevents me from contracting bloodborne pathogens.

Not everyone is at risk for AIDs - only those with lifestyles that increase the risk of transmission.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Doesn't the red cross have a responsibility to provide clean, uninfected blood?
That's why they test all the blood.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
My lifestyle prevents me from contracting bloodborne pathogens.

Not everyone is at risk for AIDs - only those with lifestyles that increase the risk of transmission.
sexual transmission is only one of the risk vectors.

However, heterosexual contact with an infected partner is a risk as well as homosexual contact with an infected partner.

If you are having sex at all, regardless of orientation, you ARE at risk, or if you exposed to any of the other vectors.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:34 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
To say that gays don't discolose their lifestyle choice because of discrimiation is ridiculous. And to not disclose this is as irresponsible as their lifestyle.
I love the juxtaposition of those two sentences.

Originally posted by dcolton:
If one person contracts HIV from a blood transfusion...that is one person too much. A person should not be handed a death sentence because he/ she needed a pint of blood.
Ahhh...but say not every pint of blood was tested, and a person contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion unknowingly, and then donated blood themselves. Couldn't they possibly honestly answer that they aren't homosexual? And then wouldn't their subsequent donation be infected?

Again, THAT IS THE POINT of testing all the blood...the questions are meaningless to the risk of being lulled into skipping one donor's blood based on self-reporting.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I love the juxtaposition of those two sentences.

Ahhh...but say not every pint of blood was tested, and a person contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion unknowingly, and then donated blood themselves. Couldn't they possibly honestly answer that they aren't homosexual? And then wouldn't their subsequent donation be infected?

Again, THAT IS THE POINT of testing all the blood...the questions are meaningless to the risk of being lulled into skipping one donor's blood based on self-reporting.
You are classic! I like the way you are trying to change the very essence of the argument to testing all blood, which has already been established. This isn't a question about testing all blood.

It is a question as to what the Red Cross can or cannot ask of potential donors. They ask these questions in an effort to minimize risk. If the majority of AID's victims come from men who have anal sex...then why is this not a relevant question? INstead, you would rather risk the chance of tainted blood infecting innocent people.
     
Meneldil
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:48 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
No, I don't think I am missing the point. Gays are a high risk group for aids - nothing more, nothing less. To say that gays don't discolose their lifestyle choice because of discrimiation is ridiculous. And to not disclose this is as irresponsible as their lifestyle. If that is the case, why are we debating same sex marriages?

If one person contracts HIV from a blood transfusion...that is one person too much. A person should not be handed a death sentence because he/ she needed a pint of blood.
Yes, taken as a whole, we are a high risk group. You need to look at the bigger picture though - we are currently the largest population of HIV sufferers in the US, but other groups are growing at a higher rate. You shouldn't be disqualifying on 'have you had sex with a man since 1977' - you should be asking about multiple partners, have you been tested, and stress that you can have your blood taken out of the supply if you're not sure (I think by putting your barcode on a different spot on the form).

I'm all for assuring the safety of the blood supply, but I don't think the current questions do that very well. They certainly exclude potential donors, like gay men in monogamous relationships, and fail to exclude other donors.

Also,
as irresponsible as their lifestyle
Nice assumptions you're making about my 'lifestyle'.
--
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 12:53 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
You are classic! I like the way you are trying to change the very essence of the argument to testing all blood, which has already been established. This isn't a question about testing all blood.

It is a question as to what the Red Cross can or cannot ask of potential donors. They ask these questions in an effort to minimize risk. If the majority of AID's victims come from men who have anal sex...then why is this not a relevant question? INstead, you would rather risk the chance of tainted blood infecting innocent people.
Actually, I'm saying we do and should test all blood, that's the only way to be absolutely sure and insure the greatest safety. I'm saying relying on donor's self-reporting is superfluous and introduces MORE risk to the blood supply.

How you get from that to "INstead, you would rather risk the chance of tainted blood infecting innocent people." is beyond bizarre. I'm actually being MORE restrictive than the questionaire would be. I'm saying we should NOT trust self-reporting as a screening factor.

Lastly, I"m confused why you use the term "innocent" people. what do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean "heterosexual" people?
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:01 PM
 
I think there's a few people in this thread who are afraid of getting 'gay' blood.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Actually, I'm saying we do and should test all blood, that's the only way to be absolutely sure and insure the greatest safety. I'm saying relying on donor's self-reporting is superfluous and introduces MORE risk to the blood supply.

How you get from that to "INstead, you would rather risk the chance of tainted blood infecting innocent people." is beyond bizarre. I'm actually being MORE restrictive than the questionaire would be. I'm saying we should NOT trust self-reporting as a screening factor.

Lastly, I"m confused why you use the term "innocent" people. what do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean "heterosexual" people?
Another classic Lerkism. No I remember why I put you on ignore

What do I mean by innocent? Me, you, any unsuspecting victim of tainted blood - even a gay person.

The issue of self reporting comes down to the fact that testing is not 100% effective - therefore you eliminate high risk individuals.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"We are ALL at risk for AIDs, a disease does not discriminate based on lifestyle."

^ that's totally incorrect.

*Only* sexually active mofos are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

The rest of us are OK.
Yes. Abstinent folks are OK.

and you're right: HIV infection is showing its highest growth rate in the most sexually active, 17-21 heterosexual age group. Both in Europe and in the United States, IIRC.

-s*
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes. Abstinent folks are OK.

and you're right: HIV infection is showing its highest growth rate in the 17-21 heterosexual age group. Both in Europe and in the United States, IIRC.

-s*
You people are well-aware HIV can be transmitted by means other than sexual acts correct?

Therefore abstinence is not a perfect solution.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
I think there's a few people in this thread who are afraid of getting 'gay' blood.
Bah! Quit turning this into something it isn't
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
You people are well-aware HIV can be transmitted by means other than sexual acts correct?

Therefore abstinence is not a perfect solution.
Yeah - I was going to mention that.

Nobody is at "no risk".

Unless perhaps you live alone in the woods on a mountain somewhere.

-s*
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:08 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yeah - I was going to mention that.

Nobody is at "no risk".

Unless perhaps you live alone in the woods.

-s*
In which case, chances are you aren't participating in this conversation.

Who knows, though, maybe they're on their airport connection.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:14 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
The issue of self reporting comes down to the fact that testing is not 100% effective - therefore you eliminate high risk individuals.
That taken as a premise, I think it's clear that the questionnaire needs to be as detailed as possible, to eliminate those high-risk individuals (as you correctly identified them). Eliminate them by the hazardous details of their individual lifestyle, not by which orifice they stick their meat into or whether they flick bean.

A monogamous gay man is at FAR less risk than a typical twentysomething heterosexual single.

That said, I say we eliminate all S/M fans RIGHT off the bat.

-s*
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That taken as a premise, I think it's clear that the questionnaire needs to be as detailed as possible, to eliminate those high-risk individuals (as you correctly identified them). Eliminate them by the hazardous details of their individual lifestyle, not by which orifice they stick their meat into or whether they flick bean.

A monogamous gay man is at FAR less risk than a typical twentysomething heterosexual single.

That said, I say we eliminate all S/M fans RIGHT off the bat.

-s*
Hell, if you want to elimine high risk individuals, ask if they have:

A. Had unprotected sex with multiple partners

B. Engaged in anal sex.

Same results, and you don't even have to mention homosexuality.
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 01:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Again, THAT IS THE POINT of testing all the blood...the questions are meaningless to the risk of being lulled into skipping one donor's blood based on self-reporting.
Test are not 100% accurate. Questioneers are not either. But together they are more effective than either on its on. Homosexual activity does increase the probability of an HIV infection. That's a fact not a judgment about any lifestyle. There are questions about other risk factors both voluntary such as drug use and tatoos, and involuntary such as hemophilia or recent surgery. The Red Cross is simply taking steps to protect the blood supply. They are not judging anybody. There are also many other reasons they reject donors not at all related to HIV.

The whole discrimination argument is just political correctness gone wild. Donors that are rejected, for any reason, are not deprived of any tangible benifit. The information they gather in the questioneers is kept confidential. Being dedied as a blood donor is hardly the same as being denied a promotion or being made to sit at the back of the bus. In the context of giving blood, sexual orientation is not an innocuous trait. In other realms of life it is. When somone is passed over for a promotion because they are gay then you can start talking about discrimination.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 02:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Montezuma58:
Test are not 100% accurate. Questioneers are not either. But together they are more effective than either on its on. Homosexual activity does increase the probability of an HIV infection. That's a fact not a judgment about any lifestyle.
*sigh*

No.

"Homosexuality" may correlate with higher HIV percentages (currently; I've mentioned that growth rates are higher in other sectors, which is important to consider, since we're not just talking about now - this issue isn't going to go away tomorrow.

However, I suggest we eliminate men entirely, since their a much higher-risk group.

Or would you rather eliminate Blacks, as a higher-risk group?

Point is, unprotected anal sex is not "inherently" gay. I know plenty of gay males who don't penetrate, or who live in long-term monogamous relationships where both members are tested ('scuse the pun), or who simply don't have unprotected sex. I also know plenty of heterosexual males who regularly have unprotected sex - including anal sex - and not all of them in strictly monogamous relationships.

How high a percentage of the population do you think fits that description? I'll bet it's higher than the total male gay population.

Why aren't they excluded, while your blood banks and dying patients are being deprived of perfectly good, risk-free blood denied them because of useless, as unapplicable, criteria?

Using homosexuality is simply not a valid distinction. It is discrimination. It does not reflect reality.

-s*
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 03:15 PM
 
I have nothing against sexual orientation profiling or racial profiling.

Pulling a Black person over for suspicion in a prodominately White neighborhood is fine and dandy with me.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 03:27 PM
 
Okay, I just read the article, and yes I agree it is discriminatory.

I actually don't have a problem with screening out people who are at high risk. It's blood for crying out loud and it needs to be safe.

However, I agree with the complaint about this question:

�Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once?�

Oh come on now, 1977?! If the question was �Are you a male who has had sex with another male within the last year", then I think it's fair.

They should also screen out those who had use IV drugs within the last year, those who had more than 3 sex partners within the last year, and those who had solicited a prostitute within the last year.

Any questions about someones sexual lifestyle over more than 1 year or 2 is just ridiculous in my opinion.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 03:57 PM
 
Originally posted by hyteckit:
However, I agree with the complaint about this question:

�Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once?�

Oh come on now, 1977?! If the question was �Are you a male who has had sex with another male within the last year", then I think it's fair.
But that's exactly the same discrimination!

What's so difficult about "Have you had unprotected anal sex within the last __________?"

Sheesh.

-s*
     
benb
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Far from the internet.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 04:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
You people are well-aware HIV can be transmitted by means other than sexual acts correct?

Therefore abstinence is not a perfect solution.
Am I at risk of contracting polio then, because it exists? No.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2004, 04:13 PM
 
Originally posted by benb:
Am I at risk of contracting polio then, because it exists? No.
I don't follow the logic.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,