proposal to change blood donation screening rules

[cobber]

With new HIV research, FDA may let gay men donate blood - Washington Times

Yes, because not hurting peoples' feelings is more important than protecting lives.

The students’ solution is to change the questionnaire to ask prospective blood donors, “Have you had unprotected sexual contact with a new partner in the past 12 weeks?”

Why do we screen for risk factors in anything at all. Someone is always offended, or excluded.

Let's start with the NICS, if these activists really want to stop discrimination...

 

[GBuck]

I mean, it is a pretty stupid question. As if heterosexual people can't get AIDS?

 

[GBuck]

Sure, someone can say for sure that they haven't had sex with anyone but their spouse. You realize how many people would be wrong when they say their spouse hasn't had sex with someone else? Guess what, the cheating spouse didn't happen to have an HIV (or any other STD) test kit around when they decided to cheat on you.. They're not exactly concerned with you when they're doing it.

I don't care that it's discriminatory. I care that it's a stupid question.

 

[jamil]

I mean, it is a pretty stupid question. As if heterosexual people can't get AIDS?

The questions are there because of statistics. Have the statistics changed?

 

[GBuck]

The questions are there because of statistics. Have the statistics changed?

The statistics mean less and less each day. We live in an immoral world. (and yes, more straight people have aids now than did 20 years ago) Either they want to protect patients and be safe about it, or they don't.

 

[cobber]

The statistics mean less and less each day. We live in an immoral world. (and yes, more straight people have aids now than did 20 years ago) Either they want to protect patients and be safe about it, or they don't.

I would ask for a source on that. Do you mean raw numbers, or as a percentage of the HIV-positive population?

Sometimes screens have a rational basis. Even if they don't correlate exactly with risks.

 

[GBuck]

I would ask for a source on that. Do you mean raw numbers, or as a percentage of the HIV-positive population?

Sometimes screens have a rational basis. Even if they don't correlate exactly with risks.

As a percentage of the population of those infected with HIV. This is a chart from the first site on google that sources the CDC. It's actually the same info I was referring to originally, but I don't have time to search through all the CDC stuff right now (I've got to go pick up the lady). Nearly 25% of those infected with HIV in the US are straight, non-drug using people.

 

[Stschil]

It's not like the blood isn't tested long before the bag is hung and the IV inserted. The Red Cross doesn't rely the answers to declare the blood safe. I agree, it's a stupid question
The Red Cross has premanently disqualified many people who would be happy to donate blood because of some stupid rule or another. I am one of them. I stopped attempting to donate years ago because I was informed that my service in Germany had 'possibly' put me in contact with some extremely dangerous blood pathogen. Yeah, so dangerous that it's had next to ZERO effect on the German populace.
Kind of a rant on my part, I know, but I was raised in a household that gave blood regularly because we have several family members who've had some serious issues requiring multiple surgeries. We knew that blood donations save lives. Top that off with me being AB+ (not the rarest type, I know) and it grates on me not to be able to help in that way.

 

[GBuck]

It's not like the blood isn't tested long before the bag is hung and the IV inserted. The Red Cross doesn't rely the answers to declare the blood safe. I agree, it's a stupid question
The Red Cross has premanently disqualified many people who would be happy to donate blood because of some stupid rule or another. I am one of them. I stopped attempting to donate years ago because I was informed that my service in Germany had 'possibly' put me in contact with some extremely dangerous blood pathogen. Yeah, so dangerous that it's had next to ZERO effect on the German populace.
Kind of a rant on my part, I know, but I was raised in a household that gave blood regularly because we have several family members who've had some serious issues requiring multiple surgeries. We knew that blood donations save lives. Top that off with me being AB+ (not the rarest type, I know) and it grates on me not to be able to help in that way.

This is true, however, in many cases HIV is not detectable for 6 months or so after contraction.

 

[jamil]

It's not like the blood isn't tested long before the bag is hung and the IV inserted. The Red Cross doesn't rely the answers to declare the blood safe. I agree, it's a stupid question
The Red Cross has premanently disqualified many people who would be happy to donate blood because of some stupid rule or another. I am one of them. I stopped attempting to donate years ago because I was informed that my service in Germany had 'possibly' put me in contact with some extremely dangerous blood pathogen. Yeah, so dangerous that it's had next to ZERO effect on the German populace.
Kind of a rant on my part, I know, but I was raised in a household that gave blood regularly because we have several family members who've had some serious issues requiring multiple surgeries. We knew that blood donations save lives. Top that off with me being AB+ (not the rarest type, I know) and it grates on me not to be able to help in that way.

We can't say there's no benefit to reducing risk factors before hand. Testing isn't perfect either. People make mistakes no matter how much we try to mitigate against them.

That said, I don't know if statistically, gay men tend to have aids more than straight men. If the risk is statistically significant, I can see the need. But perhaps the question is there more because of the stigma associated with public perception, rather than because of the actual risk. If that's the case, yeah, it's a stupid question. Also, if the statistics are more compelling for people who've had resent multiple partners, then that may be a better question to ask.

In your case, if Germany doesn't have a problem, why would we? I've always wondered about that question on the questionnaire.

 

[Stschil]

This is true, however, in many cases HIV is not detectable for 6 months or so after contraction.

And I left Germany in 1996. You'd think such a carrier of a life taking disease would have been dead by now

(Arguing both sides of the coin here)
HIV/AIDS is dangerous, no doubt, but from a practical perspective, if advances in testing can now provide the assurance that the donated blood is safe, then why turn away those who are willing?
Socially, if this is a merely a move by some toward acceptance, changing the question to ally a certain section of the populations' self image by arguing that medical advances have taken place is rather selfish and extremely stupid. Yet another nail in the coffin being driven by progressivism. Either there is medically sound reason to dump the exclusion or there isn't. 'Feelings' are not a good basis for decision making when it involves putting so many at risk.
Again to social aspect, if gay males have no issues with their lifestyle, why are they offended by the original question?

 

[GBuck]

Regarding Germany/Europe: The reason you are not eligible is an anti-body that you more than likely acquired while over there that we in the US do not have as a norm. If you gave someone that does not have this anti-body your blood, especially someone that is already in a fragile state and needing blood, you could kill them. Either way I appreciate your service, and thank you for being willing to donate blood in the first place.

And I left Germany in 1996. You'd think such a carrier of a life taking disease would have been dead by now

(Arguing both sides of the coin here)
HIV/AIDS is dangerous, no doubt, but from a practical perspective, if advances in testing can now provide the assurance that the donated blood is safe, then why turn away those who are willing?
Socially, if this is a merely a move by some toward acceptance, changing the question to ally a certain section of the populations' self image by arguing that medical advances have taken place is rather selfish and extremely stupid. Yet another nail in the coffin being driven by progressivism. Either there is medically sound reason to dump the exclusion or there isn't. 'Feelings' are not a good basis for decision making when it involves putting so many at risk.
Again to social aspect, if gay males have no issues with their lifestyle, why are they offended by the original question?

I don't believe that the REAL reason for the change is social acceptance. It may be a "perk" of it. Note above: almost 25% of people that have HIV/AIDS in the US are straight non drug abusing people. The reason this is high is because of promiscuity. Promiscuity is the reason they will now be asking if you've had sex with a new partner within six months. Again, they say six months because if it was 8 months, the HIV would show up in their testing. At say, 4 months, they could test your blood and not catch the HIV because it can be undetectable until about 6 months.

 

[Stschil]

Regarding Germany/Europe: The reason you are not eligible is an anti-body that you more than likely acquired while over there that we in the US do not have as a norm.

This is my curiosity taking hold here...so please excuse the slight thread jacking tangent:
If it's an anti-body, why is the question predicated on being present during a certain time frame? Unless the phlebotomist that explained it to me was full of , my disqualifier was known to be contracted via ingestion of local meats during specific years. As I understood it, I could have been exposed to and be carrying a dormant disease. If it's anti-bodies or a disease fighter, Wouldn't this be something that is a good thing for someone who is recovering?

 

[GBuck]

This is my curiosity taking hold here...so please excuse the slight thread jacking tangent:
If it's an anti-body, why is the question predicated on being present during a certain time frame? Unless the phlebotomist that explained it to me was full of , my disqualifier was known to be contracted via ingestion of local meats during specific years. As I understood it, I could have been exposed to and be carrying a dormant disease. If it's anti-bodies or a disease fighter, Wouldn't this be something that is a good thing for someone who is recovering?

No, your phlebotomist was right. It was a hormone in the beef back then that your body got used to. Your body created the antibody because of it. He's saying the same thing a me just more in depth.

When someone one needs a transfusion their blood is tested for what antibodies if any your blood has. Then they take the pint they're going to give you and work it up with the proper antibodies. The one you have from the euro meet is not recreatable at a rate that is worth having you donate. Mixing blood with different antibodies is a no go for the most part.

 

[Stschil]

No, your phlebotomist was right. It was a hormone in the beef back then that your body got used to. Your body created the antibody because of it. He's saying the same thing a me just more in depth.

When someone one needs a transfusion their blood is tested for what antibodies if any your blood has. Then they take the pint they're going to give you and work it up with the proper antibodies. The one you have from the euro meet is not recreatable at a rate that is worth having you donate. Mixing blood with different antibodies is a no go for the most part.

Damn, all that because I liked Jaegerschnitzel and Zweibraten? I guess that explains why I was able to donate while in Germany and turned away when I got back to CONUS.

 

[CarmelHP]

According to the graph, gays comprise a half of HIV cases. However, the percentage usually mentioned of gays of both sexes in the general population is about 10%. That would mean that gay men are, at least, 5 times more likely to carry HIV than the general population. That's significant.

 

[ghuns]

That would mean that gay men are, at least, 5 times more likely to carry HIV than the general population. That's significant.

That's gayist you big meanie!

 

[jamil]

According to the graph, gays comprise a half of HIV cases. However, the percentage usually mentioned of gays of both sexes in the general population is about 10%. That would mean that gay men are, at least, 5 times more likely to carry HIV than the general population. That's significant.

It would seem so. The chart showing the HIV demographics must have been posted before I posted. If the reason for the new question were to better fit the demographics, I could see the need for change. But this seems more a matter of political correctness than anything else.

 

[nawainwright]

As a percentage of the population of those infected with HIV. This is a chart from the first site on google that sources the CDC. It's actually the same info I was referring to originally, but I don't have time to search through all the CDC stuff right now (I've got to go pick up the lady). Nearly 25% of those infected with HIV in the US are straight, non-drug using people.

CarmelHP is correct. With homosexuals comprising less than 10% of the population, they account for over 50% of the AIDS cases. Blood donors are also screened and disqualified for drug use, which is another 25%. This issue comes up every couple of years and I've talked with a number of hospital Laboratory Technicians (the people who do the testing of the blood and analyzing) and they are strongly opposed not only for the dangers to themselves (because of accidental infection) but because it comprises such an unreasonable risk to patients.

 

[nawainwright]

CDC: 62 Percent Of HIV-Positive Men Have Unprotected Sex « CBS Atlanta

And if this doesn't say it all, you're not listening. They don't want to change, they want you to change.