On HIV and Blood Donation

@USAF. I think it's basically a "Why should I have to lie to you for you to let me help you."

Because it's the right thing to do, helping people. Regardless of whether or not they hate you.

Besides, it takes a giant shit on a big part of their argument: that being gay makes you inherently immoral. And yet you'd be following their idol—Jesus—to a tee by "turning the other cheek," so to speak. Now who is the immoral bastard?

to be most effective I'd suggest not focusing on a minority prohibited from donating and instead trying to get the apathetic majority to care more.

It'd be more effective I'd think. To me this whole thing is coming off as a bit of a holier than thou revision of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for blood. I understand that isn't your intention, but it's still somewhat grating.

You shouldn't lie to doctors, Lying to doctors gets people killed. It's not their fault that politicals are making their jobs harder, nor is it ours.

edited 26th Aug '11 4:59:13 PM by Lanceleoghauni

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was only stupid because it was intended to be permanent, not as a transition to simply allowing gays to serve. I'm saying, make this as the transition. In the meantime of fighting for the right to simply donate anyhow, you can do civil disobedience.

And I yet again stress that you should have a blood test done before hand to check for diseases. I didn't say donate blindly...

and I get that USAF, I don't mean to try and call you a straw man, I just think that making it clear how much blood they're missing (since you know, every drop counts, especially amongst rarer types like AB and O-) Might have a better chance at changing things than not telling them I like cock.

If that argument was valid to them, we'd have already reformed the system...

The thing is. I don't think they've even noticed, and probably won't. Because the media, for the most part, is More concerned with party line drivel and posturing than with actual social issues like the state of healthcare.

Unless it's about obamacare and death panels for grandma.

People are blaming the ban homophobia but think that is forgetting Hanlon's razor.

It's just fear of malpractice suits. If a patient dies because the right blood wasn't available not one can be held personally responsible. If a patient dies because of a contaminated transfusion someone can. Even if there's no real evidence that gay people are more likely to have HIV, no one not is going to stick their necks out on the off chance that they are.

edited 27th Aug '11 1:17:32 AM by joeyjojo

United State of Attorneys isn't the only one with the MSM blood donation ban. The ban was put into code amidst the strongest HIV paranoia in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

...so then you limit malpractice to actual malpractice (the tests weren't performed, weren't performed properly, etc.), and you don't allow idiots to sue people over a test that didn't show a disease because the test didn't pick it up, not because of any human error.

If you're talking on a cell phone and you kill someone with your car while driving, I'd throw you in court. If your breaks fail and you kill someone with your car while driving, that's just an accident. It shouldn't be that difficult...

In the UK they've just announced that gay men will be allowed at to give blood providing they have not had sex with another man in less then a year.

Well That's Certainly A Step Up, Isn't It?

edited 8th Sep '11 9:51:10 PM by Lanceleoghauni

so basicallyu nothings changed except for the occasional gay guy who has problems finding a date.

People I know we all hate Institutionalized profiling based on people's sexual preferences, but the fact of that matter is that the department of infection control believe people who have had male to male sexual contact as having significantly higher risk of contracting HIV

Yes we have more effective blood tests now. But it's not fool proof. In a perfect world each cases would be looked at individually and a more fair risk assessment could be made. But the simple matter is that the system has to work with limited resources.

edited 9th Sep '11 1:52:32 AM by joeyjojo

I would accept that as an answer, perhaps, if they'd done anything but allowed the possibility. In effect absolutely nothing has changed, and it sounds like nothing more than a PR move.

Or bisexual guys who haven't gone out with a man in a while.

And the most people with AIDS in Western Europe are (I think) White heterosexual males.

edited 9th Sep '11 2:35:39 AM by JosefBugman

25% of HIV positive Americans spent time in Prison last year.

It's not the sex that's the biggest problem, I have a feeling, it's the drugs. Though with how often the two intermix in a correctional facility, I don't know that they can really be considered distinct issues.

edited 9th Sep '11 12:39:51 PM by Lanceleoghauni

Either way pirson is a breeding ground for diseases.

I can't remember how I found this discussion. Searching for something unrelated I think. Anyways, throughout the thread no one came to the defense of the laws that say MSM (men who have sex with men) cannot donate blood. I'm only playing devil's advocate here, since I'm not sure what is right in this case, but it is NOT just homophobia or bigotry. The tests mentioned in earlier posts to detect HIV are NOT perfect. They are believed to be accurate enough that less than 3 in 10000 tests will result in a false negative, assuming there is a prior probability is not known. However, among populations where HIV is more common the rate is higher. Conversely, if we exclude those most likely to have HIV, then the rate will be even lower. I'm not sure what the actual effect would be given such tiny possibilities of false positives, but a study in the UK determined we would have far more cases of HIV from blood transfusion if MSM were allowed to donate. Regardless we would expect some increase in HIV transmission if we allow MSM to donate. This of course has to be balanced against the possible deaths from inadequate blood supply, but I do not think it is a matter of LGBT rights. If allowing MSM to donate would lead to a net increase in deaths, I would not support it even if it appears on the surface to be prejudiced.

As for why MSM have a higher rate of HIV, or if they in fact do, I'm not certain. I do know that you have a much higher chance of contracting any STD if you are the receiving partner in anal sex compared to other forms of sex. Conversely, the penetrating partner has a very low chance of contracting any diseases, regardless of whether the sex is anal, vaginal, or oral. The result is that heterosexual men would be expected to have a very low rate of ST Ds compared to either MSM or women.

Next we'll prevent black people from donating blood because their HIV rates are higher than any other ethnic/racial group in the United States.

Oh, but don't be silly. That HIV is just a natural disease, not a divine punishment for the gay perversion!

Are you suggesting it is USAF?

I mean, I assume not, but that's the way it comes off. the sarcasm mode doesn't really help :P

edited 2nd Oct '11 3:32:15 AM by Lanceleoghauni

Yeah... I not sure what you're trying to impy there USA.

Really, guys? The fact that you think I'd honestly suggest that as true makes me feel terrible, now...