Why not just let them do a blood test?
firefluff3
Blood banks always test the blood that is donated.
at least I hope they do :P
This topic is locked from further discussion.
They do test blood.....everyone's. But the tests aren't 100%...which is why it's an issue I guess.Why not just let them do a blood test?
firefluff3
[QUOTE="Kcube"][QUOTE="firefluff3"]
Why not just let them do a blood test?
Swanogt19
Blood banks always test the blood that is donated.
at least I hope they do :P
Yes they do.I was pretty sure they did, but thats ridiculious that homosexuals haven't been to able to donate blood until now, theres no reason for it.
Yes they do.[QUOTE="Swanogt19"][QUOTE="Kcube"]
Blood banks always test the blood that is donated.
at least I hope they do :P
firefluff3
I was pretty sure they did, but thats ridiculious that homosexuals haven't been to able to donate blood until now, theres no reason for it.
Well technically speaking HIV is more common amongst homosexuals that it is among heterosexuals, per capita anyway.Yes they should, and with modern screening techniques it's ridiculous that they have these restriction imposed against them.
Modern screening isn't 100%.....Yes they should, and with modern screening techniques it's ridiculous that they have these restriction imposed against them.
certifieddata
While I voted yes, I'm surprised that folks ITT are taken aback by the restrictions placed on certain demographics.
We're talking about sharing blood, not suffrage or the right to marry. The various tests performed on donated blood aren't perfect, and they were less accurate 15, 20 years ago. If you can easily identify a statistically significant demographic prone to a disease and remove them from the donation pool, then you further reduce the risk of spreading infectious disease. When/if that demographic no longer poses a significant risk relative to the overall population, then their ban should be lifted. The simple fact is that gay males in the 80s and early 90s had an increased chance of contracting HIV relative to the overall population. I think they're still to this day something like 50 times more likely to contract HIV than the rest of the pop.
[QUOTE="certifieddata"]Modern screening isn't 100%..... So technically everyone could have HIV/AIDS. Therefore we shouldn't allow anyone to donate blood.Yes they should, and with modern screening techniques it's ridiculous that they have these restriction imposed against them.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="certifieddata"]Modern screening isn't 100%..... So technically everyone could have HIV/AIDS. Therefore we shouldn't allow anyone to donate blood. One...technically no. Not everyone could have HIV/AIDS. And two.....I was making the statement that one shouldn't put too much faith in the test as conclusive. This isn't a civil rights issue. It's a health issue....and the two shouldn't be confused.Yes they should, and with modern screening techniques it's ridiculous that they have these restriction imposed against them.
Swanogt19
First off that was sarcasm. :roll: If the tests aren't a 100% then they could be wrong for someone doesn't have AIDS yes? So that puts anyone at risk of donating blood to have "bad blood"Swanogt19It puts those that are at risk due to personal choices as a risk...yes. But not everyone.:|
[QUOTE="Swanogt19"]First off that was sarcasm. :roll: If the tests aren't a 100% then they could be wrong for someone doesn't have AIDS yes? So that puts anyone at risk of donating blood to have "bad blood"LJS9502_basicIt puts those that are at risk due to personal choices as a risk...yes. But not everyone.:| Personal choices is a very broad term that could apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Unless your just using personal choices to describe ones orientation. And you didn't answer my question.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Swanogt19"]First off that was sarcasm. :roll: If the tests aren't a 100% then they could be wrong for someone doesn't have AIDS yes? So that puts anyone at risk of donating blood to have "bad blood"Swanogt19It puts those that are at risk due to personal choices as a risk...yes. But not everyone.:| Personal choices is a very broad term that could apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Unless your just using personal choices to describe ones orientation. And you didn't answer my question. What question? Is everyone at risk for having contaminated blood....no. Not at all. Personal choice is just that......I don't know why that is confusing.
My question was, if the system is not a 100% accurate is it possible that someone who does not have HIV/AIDS to show positive for AIDS? As far as personal choices go.... someone who is a heterosexual who has unprotected sex compared to a heterosexual who has protected sex. Who is more at risk? You can use your argument about the history of homosexual in the past be we're talking now, today after the AIDS scare of the 90's. Please provide me with some evidence from the last decade. Swanogt19False positive? I haven't read anything that says that is a problem. But even if it happens.....it doesn't harm anyone. And I'd imagine an individual with a false positive would want to take a test for their own piece of mind. That is, of course, if individuals are told of a problem during screening. It's a bit simplistic to use only protected sex as a guide. A couple that has been together for some years and engages in no risky behavior should not be a risk without protection. And while the odds of STDs is almost nil with protection.....there can always be an exception if damage is not noticed. If an individual is promiscuous....I'd recommend they not donate blood until enough time has passed that the screening can catch it. Anyway...yes heterosexuals can be a risk. But when risk assessment is done.....it's not as high barring other risky endeavors of course. Plus, too, you have to remember the era when these rules were put in place. Change happens slowly. But again.....this isn't a civil rights issue. In a perfect world everyone would be responsible and upfront about their behavior and not think to donate if they were at risk. But the world is not perfect. Perhaps someday a test will be developed that answers all the questions satisfactorily. Anyway....I'm sensing you didn't read my initial post.
[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Dependent on whether or not there is any noticeable increase in HIV between gay men and straight men.iamveryangryThere is, but the increase in risk to the person recieving the transfusion is so negligible that if the ban were lifted, thousands of lives would be saved for every extra HIV infection that slipped through the net. Would you want to be the guy that happened to have the one that slipped through the net?
[QUOTE="iamveryangry"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]Dependent on whether or not there is any noticeable increase in HIV between gay men and straight men.th3warr1orThere is, but the increase in risk to the person recieving the transfusion is so negligible that if the ban were lifted, thousands of lives would be saved for every extra HIV infection that slipped through the net. Would you want to be the guy that happened to have the one that slipped through the net? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You don't think thousands of people saved who would otherwise have died as a result of being given stale blood are worth a single extra HIV infection?
I believe the answer is definitely yes, however I do not think that such a strong negative reception to the idea of h0mosexuals not being able to donate blood is appropriate. Sure, this is something which should have changed years ago, but that doesn't mean to say nobody wanted it to change until now. It is understandable that gay people were at a point not allowed to donate blood, because at the time AIDs and HIV were considered exclusive to the h0mosexual community. Now even though this assumption was incorrect, these blood-transmitted conditions did still hold a prominent link with gays. Some of the responses to this topic don't seem particularly well thought through, the law was put in place for a reason, one that I'm sure seemed right at the time.
you know, if they are worried about gay people having aids or not, theres a really simple way of finding out that doesnt involve banning gay people from giving blood: a freaking AIDS TEST.
also, whats the point of having a gay blood ban? all someone needs to do to give blood is to pretend to be straight...
Well, back in the days, too much gay orgy and too much HIV gays. Remember, most HIV test can only tell you that you are negative 6 months AGO, not within 6 months. This is why it is easier to ban them instead of taking the blood that has untraceable amount of HIV virus. Since the newer gay generation doesn't do as much unprotected orgy, the HIV population is lower and thus, it is less risky to take donations now. As gay I don't blame them. It is not about gay rights, it is about not taking the risk of spreading HIV infections.magicalclick
Man you know the orgy habits of gays throughout the centuries dont you...
If you deliberately do that, you're a very twisted human, and I don't think anyone would be capable of doing that, let alone deliberately have sex with a HIV Positive person unprotected. Don't be daft.Just to be clear, there is always a risk of HIV virus in the donation and it is "untraceable". If you deliberately have unprotected sex with a HIV positive person within a month and donate your blood, they WILL NOT know it is dirty and will give it to the patients. Our technology is not that great in term of validating the blood, so, donate responsibly.
magicalclick
I don't understand why they wouldn't accept the blood, don't they test it before hand?
On a related note, my black freind, who was born in Africa, can't donate blood.
[QUOTE="magicalclick"]If you deliberately do that, you're a very twisted human, and I don't think anyone would be capable of doing that, let alone deliberately have sex with a HIV Positive person unprotected. Don't be daft.1/100 people is a sociopath....Just to be clear, there is always a risk of HIV virus in the donation and it is "untraceable". If you deliberately have unprotected sex with a HIV positive person within a month and donate your blood, they WILL NOT know it is dirty and will give it to the patients. Our technology is not that great in term of validating the blood, so, donate responsibly.
Deihjan
If you deliberately do that, you're a very twisted human, and I don't think anyone would be capable of doing that, let alone deliberately have sex with a HIV Positive person unprotected. Don't be daft.1/100 people is a sociopath.... Riiiiight, and you think they'd risk their own life just to spread HIV to a bloodbank ?[QUOTE="Deihjan"][QUOTE="magicalclick"]
Just to be clear, there is always a risk of HIV virus in the donation and it is "untraceable". If you deliberately have unprotected sex with a HIV positive person within a month and donate your blood, they WILL NOT know it is dirty and will give it to the patients. Our technology is not that great in term of validating the blood, so, donate responsibly.
CaveJohnson1
[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]1/100 people is a sociopath.... Riiiiight, and you think they'd risk their own life just to spread HIV to a bloodbank ?Sociopaths don't care about others, all they care about is their goals, and often times said goals are not benevolent.[QUOTE="Deihjan"] If you deliberately do that, you're a very twisted human, and I don't think anyone would be capable of doing that, let alone deliberately have sex with a HIV Positive person unprotected. Don't be daft.Deihjan
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]"The restrictions were put in place in the 1980s to prevent the risk of HIV contamination."thegergThat's funny because HIV isn't exclusive to homosexuals. Of course it's not, but it was much more prevalent in the gay community at the time the rule was put in place.From what I've seen it's actually worst amongst black women, spread around by players.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment