US ban on gay blood donors is examined

Judged:

2

1

1

Tammy Duckworth wrote:

<quoted text>who sells their blood at intercity plasma clinics for a quick buck? Drunks, druggies, homeless, and prostitutes. That's all ok BUT no blood from an educated, clean and healthy gay man just wanting to help!

Awesome Androgeny wrote:

<quoted text>

Rest assured that the "drunks, druggies, homeless, and prostitutes" that sell blood are not adding to the community blood supply for transfusion.

Judged:

1

1

1

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
When you put it like that, of course it doesn't make sense. I'm sure the gay blood donor ban started out of homophobia anyway. The point is there is an assumption when making these policies that the honor system works. I would like to think people who are at risk of contracting HIV would not want to risk others by donating blood (and I'm not pointing specifically to any group in saying that).
I mentioned before that I think, from a psychosocial perspective, the gay blood ban is certainly a negative thing. It contributes to gay stigma and marginalization.
But assuming the system works in the first place and people aren't lying about their sexual histories to give blood, I think the ban has a basis in risk factor.
That being said, I would hope that the instant the HIV rates within the gay community drop, this ban would be lifted.

Judged:

2

1

1

just_zach wrote:

<quoted text>
//the risk of transmission of HIV by about 500%, according to a UK study.//
post a link on that please.
And yes they test for many things;
http://www.bloodbook.com/test-donated.html

Judged:

1

1

1

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree 100%. However, even tho I am a Universal Donor, I will continue to not donate, except for people known to me to support GLBTs. I'm just that disgusted and vindictive. If my blood is not good enough now, it won't be offered when needed in the future.

Judged:

2

2

2

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
2 daughters huh. Guess you must've been a closet Queer at one time huh. LMFAO

just_zach wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yeah what were there names, I would love to google it.

Judged:

2

1

1

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
No need to defend anyone, just ask a simple question as making an observation

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL Do I ? And do you ? by the way, how about changing your profile pic, it's pretty homely. LMFAO

Judged:

1

1

1

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
2 daughters huh. Guess you must've been a closet Queer at one time huh. LMFAO

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I can't actually find a legitimate link (it was from Wikipedia...I realize that makes it sound like I don't really do my research).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSM_blood_donor_...
I am aware they test for many things; I was under the impression that the MSM blood donor ban was mostly based on HIV rates. However, I read through a risk assessment document by the University of Ottawa and they mentioned that homosexual males were greater vectors for "other bloodborne pathogens" than heterosexual males (here's the link: http://leiss.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/do... ).

Judged:

1

1

1

Awesome Androgeny wrote:

<quoted text>
Far be it from me to defend him, but this comment is unfair, crude, and insensitive. Perhaps he WAS closet gay at one time. So what?
I have a teacher who is gay but was ashamed of it because of his strict religious upbringing. He stayed in the closet, gave no expression to his true feelings, and eventually married a woman in a misguided attempt to "make himself straight."
It's tragic that he had to do that. He is the proud father of two kids (now grown) and doesn't regret being a dad, but his efforts to "make himself straight" not only failed to change him, but robbed him AND his wife of all the passion and affection any marriage ought to have.
It must be truly painful and unimaginably lonely to be a closeted gay person. Certainly nothing to ridicule anyone for.

barry wrote:

<quoted text>i'm sure it's because you want to send them your sympathies.

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't say you were gay. Said you were a nasty Queer. And you know you are. LMFAO

just_zach wrote:

<quoted text>
I know that they mock Wiki a lot, but I personally will accept it as a leg. source. Now as to you're second point, this seems to be the Canadian donor policy from 2007, I don't see where it says anything about higher over all higher blood pathogen rates, can you show me the page you are talking about.(Sorry I just don't want to read through all that for a single point.:)

Judged:

2

1

1

just_zach wrote:

<quoted text>
You are truly a stupid little girl. You don't have to be gay to support gay rights. I am also not female yet I support women's lib.

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Try again, this time try something that's believable Queer Boy. LMFAO

Judged:

1

1

1

An impartial Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think she ever said you have to be gay to support gay "rights." Nor do I think she's a stupid little girl. She offered a little intelligent commentary to this thread and all she got for her trouble was denials and ridicule from an ignorant, arrogant a$$hole.
Topix is a cesspool, and a magnet for arrogant fools justifying immoral behavior and the spreading of a lethal plague to the general population just so they can avoid responsibility for their high-risk behavior.

Judged:

1

1

1

An impartial Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think she ever said you have to be gay to support gay "rights." Nor do I think she's a stupid little girl. She offered a little intelligent commentary to this thread and all she got for her trouble was denials and ridicule from an ignorant, arrogant a$$hole.
Topix is a cesspool, and a magnet for arrogant fools justifying immoral behavior and the spreading of a lethal plague to the general population just so they can avoid responsibility for their high-risk behavior.

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm actually finding more evidence to counter my argument than to support it. Here's a quote (from p.62):
"In blood safety today, in North America and other advanced nations, it is often said that risks of infectious diseases in blood are so low that they cannot be measured directly, but only estimated. This is, without a doubt, good news. However, it also
means that – for exactly the same reason – it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to tell with any assurance what change there might be, in the level for a particular risk, if
one of the risk control parameters is varied in a specific way.
What this means is that the risk estimations themselves are unlikely to be able to provide us, all by themselves, with the guidance we require in considering changes to policy choices for blood safety. In such a case, we must look to the larger set of decision support considerations available to us for this guidance."
Also:
"If we start with the shortest deferral periods, and work forward, these are (a) no deferral or (b) one-year deferral (i.e., sexual abstinence for one year prior to donation). The weight of evidence in the literature suggests that, for both of them, there would be
some incremental risk of transfusion-transmitted infection. For the longer of the two periods, it is certainly true that the incremental risk is extremely low: In an expert presentation in March of 2006, this was estimated (for HIV) as 1 additional case in 33 million donations."
If you don't feel like reading all that, the first quote says that blood safety risks are based on estimates and not very good indicators of actual safety. The second quote says that adding MSMs with a one-year deferral policy to the blood donation pool only increases the risk of HIV transmission by 1 case in 33 million.