Political Crossfire Forums

[George W Bush]

Do you agree with the following American Red Cross policy of blood donation:

1) You cannot ever give blood if you are a man who has sex with another man.

2) If you are a woman, you cannot give blood for one year after having sex with a man who has had sex with another man anytime in hislifetime.

Whats your opinion of this?

(by the way, dont assume it means all gay men. it means men who have had sex with other men - primarily)

[George W Bush]

Forgot a reference, Heres one where the FDA has actually LEGISLATED the guidelines:
http://www.redcross.org/news/archives/2000/9-15-00b.html

[Demonic Spoon]

What the f**k? THey already test people for STDs before they give blood. Why the hell is this needed?

[George W Bush]

Demonic Spoon wrote: What the f**k? THey already test people for STDs before they give blood. Why the hell is this needed?

I believe there is a period of undetection which is why they say to get tested often.

There are other extreme criteria, for example:

- Visiting Africa will get you deferred, as far as I know, a year (this might have been changed to permanent deferral as AIDS in that country climbs).

- Visiting Malaria areas (as dictated by the CDC guidelines for malaria epidemic areas) - you wont be able to donate for a year.

[Lissou]

Well, In France, visiting North America prevents you to give blood for 6 months. I don't understand why... But it seems that North America is considered a place with a very big epidemics.
I voted "other". If they don't ask women if they've been given anal sex, then it's just unfair. You can catch diseases this way as easily if you're a woman than if you're a man.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Why should it matter if someone's had anal sex or not? Everyone's tested for STDs regardless so I don't see how it would make any difference.

[John Galt]

Alot of people are uncomfortable with it because of the ridiculously high percentage of homosexual men that have AIDS in comparison with the rest of the population. While in other countries this may be different, most people with AIDS in this country are homosexual males. Yes, you can get AIDS other ways than homosexual sex, mostly from needles. And so if someone has had homosexual sex they are far more likely to have AIDS than a person that has not, and since people are more likely to get AIDS from needles than anything else other than homosexual sex, the Red Cross is trying to save lives. What's the problem? This isn't discrimination against "a people" or anytthing. This is discriminating agianst people that have done certian actions... such as visted Africa in the past X years or had homosexual sex, all in the intrest of helping people.

[Melchior]

John Galt wrote: Alot of people are uncomfortable with it because of the ridiculously high percentage of homosexual men that have AIDS in comparison with the rest of the population.

I always thought that was an obscure percentage, because of the ratio (homosexuals make up a lower population) it looks like AIDS is much more prevalent in the gay population when you use percentages.

But, I suck at math, so what do I know? :bnghd:

[ToonArmyIsComing]

You know what ... they should appreciate the fact that someone is donating their blood. If they are so damn prejudiced that after the blood donated is tested for diseases several times, maybe no gay person should donate. It's their loss at the end of the day.

[Kumar]

This is absolutely the correct thing to do. If you're going to claim the Red Cross is discriminating against gays because of this, you may as well claim they are racist (you cannot donate if you were born or have lived in certain African countries) and prejudiced against the slim (must weigh at least 110 lbs.).

The main problem is that of HIV. The common tests for HIV rely on antibodies present in the infected individual. However, it can take up to 6 months to produce them. That means it is very much possible for an infected individual's blood to be declared "clean", when, in fact, it is tainted. OOPS!

Throw in the very high rates of infection in the gay demographic, and you have a common sense policy.

[Prole]

Kumar wrote: This is absolutely the correct thing to do. If you're going to claim the Red Cross is discriminating against gays because of this, you may as well claim they are racist (you cannot donate if you were born or have lived in certain African countries) and prejudiced against the slim (must weigh at least 110 lbs.).

I thought that people under 110 pounds were not allowed to donate because it would be dangerous for them to donate, not because their blood would be dangerous for others.

[00timh]

anyone who donates blood undergoes an HIV test. Therefore anyone should be allowed to donate blood.

[Kumar]

Prole wrote: Kumar wrote: This is absolutely the correct thing to do. If you're going to claim the Red Cross is discriminating against gays because of this, you may as well claim they are racist (you cannot donate if you were born or have lived in certain African countries) and prejudiced against the slim (must weigh at least 110 lbs.).

I thought that people under 110 pounds were not allowed to donate because it would be dangerous for them to donate, not because their blood would be dangerous for others.
Yeah, but the point is that there are a host of requirements to donate blood based on everything from sexual history to weight. It's not discriminatory; there's a reason for those restrictions.

[Kumar]

00timh wrote: anyone who donates blood undergoes an HIV test. Therefore anyone should be allowed to donate blood.
Um, lag period...

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Kumar wrote: 00timh wrote: anyone who donates blood undergoes an HIV test. Therefore anyone should be allowed to donate blood.
Um, lag period...

That's a bit odd actually because technically gay men are not the only ones who can get HIV ...

[Kumar]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Kumar wrote: 00timh wrote: anyone who donates blood undergoes an HIV test. Therefore anyone should be allowed to donate blood.
Um, lag period...

That's a bit odd actually because technically gay men are not the only ones who can get HIV ...
I think everyone is aware of that. What's important, however, is the activities they pursue which place them at greater risk for diseases like HIV/AIDS, and this is manifested in the (relatively) very high proportion of individuals in the gay demographic who have this illness. According to the article posted by GWB, Dr. Dayton, the FDA's medical officer, estimates anywhere from 1.7 to 6 additional HIV-positive blood units entering the national blood supply, depending on the extent to which the policy is changed. This would add to the 10 entering each year presently, causing 2-3 infections annually.

[00timh]

Kumar wrote: 00timh wrote: anyone who donates blood undergoes an HIV test. Therefore anyone should be allowed to donate blood.
Um, lag period... that's fine with me.

[Kumar]

I'm sure it wouldn't be fine for the additional victims of HIV infection.

[Valdimar]

Hmm, that's odd. I have donated blood many times, I am gay, but I guess it doesn't matter because my blood is in high demand. Type O

[eXploiTeD]

Absolutely not. I wouldn't want to catch gay.



























:lol: