http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35156578
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, but I don't think they should be allowed to give blood, just as bisexual folk shouldn't.
Yes, donated blood's screened, but viruses like AIDS can hide for longer than a year; in fact, it can lay dormant for up to 10!
I know that blood doners're in demand, but quite frankly, I think it's wrong that these people should be accepted when they could well infect someone at a later stage. The clinical tests can still fail to detect a virus that's present, especially if it's very recent. The blood may be infectious to a patient, but tests sometimes can't not find the infection (it's called the window period).
I don't agree with this!
Re: I don't agree with this!
what about donors who don't admit to being promisuous?
It's a real tricky one...
It's a real tricky one...
-
Icey
Re: I don't agree with this!
Indeed. Not many folk want to admit to having 3 partners during the week! Oh dear, you know what I mean.
Fortunately for us over here, the folk who're doners seem to be of the more sensible type. They don't get paid for giving their blood, and do it out of wanting to help others, but allowing "at risk" groups to partake should be looked at in a practical manner. They don't allow drug users to give blood, or those with hepatic problems, so I'd have thought that homosexuals'd definitely fall within that group, and should be excluded. They're just having a paddy about it because they see it as them not being accepted like everyone else, but they should realise their often fickle lifestyle DOES make them a higher risk.
The problem is, of course, that promiscuity isn't just a gay or lesbian thing. Anyone with an active sex life's liable to pick something up, so from that point of view, I can appreciate the gay views on this, BUT, like it or not, straight people in a monogamous relationship're less likely to have underlying problems and STIs - providing they know about their partner's history, and that's not even 100% is it? Awkward.
Fortunately for us over here, the folk who're doners seem to be of the more sensible type. They don't get paid for giving their blood, and do it out of wanting to help others, but allowing "at risk" groups to partake should be looked at in a practical manner. They don't allow drug users to give blood, or those with hepatic problems, so I'd have thought that homosexuals'd definitely fall within that group, and should be excluded. They're just having a paddy about it because they see it as them not being accepted like everyone else, but they should realise their often fickle lifestyle DOES make them a higher risk.
The problem is, of course, that promiscuity isn't just a gay or lesbian thing. Anyone with an active sex life's liable to pick something up, so from that point of view, I can appreciate the gay views on this, BUT, like it or not, straight people in a monogamous relationship're less likely to have underlying problems and STIs - providing they know about their partner's history, and that's not even 100% is it? Awkward.
Re: I don't agree with this!
So ... there you are laying on a hospital gurney in desperate need of a pint of blood. You will die without it. The attending nurse offers a pint because your blood types are compatible and no other supply is readily available. I'm guessing you would refuse the transfusion because the nurse admitted to being gay. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that kind of decision because it is based on stereotype and not on fact. There are plenty of "straight" folks with HIV floating around in their donated blood streams, but your concern about that risk is minimal to nonexistent.
You do know that you can't catch a predisposition to be gay from a blood transfusion, right?
You do know that you can't catch a predisposition to be gay from a blood transfusion, right?
-
Icey
Re: I don't agree with this!
Yogi, if you look at my post again, I agree that people can catch something whether they're gay or straight, and no, I wouldn't object to a gay nurse attending to me, because it's not them who've donated the blood! In fact, I HAVE been seen to by a number of gay nurses, and it didn't worry me in the slightest. In fact, they were brilliant, and very amusing. : )
What I'm saying, is that it's difficult to say that yes - go ahead and let gay men be blood donors. This's because safe sex isn't always practiced - as with heterosexual couples - but there are more gay AIDS patients than there are straight ones.
In AIDS.gov, American statistics show that overall, an estimated 1,194,039 people in the United States have been diagnosed with AIDS. In 2013, 13,712 people with an AIDS diagnosis died, and approx. 658,507 people in the US who were given an AIDS diagnosis, have died overall .Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM (men who have sex with men) with an AIDS diagnosis have died.
Quote: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.
This is one of the reasons why I don't agree with gay people donating their blood, but why it's not an easy decision. I think most of us, if it came to a life or death situation'd be prepared to take the risk, but I'd feel very uneasy, even though other diseases such as CJD can be passed on in that manner as well. This happened to a man over here in April 2013, who contracted it after he was given blood, but, as with catching hepatitis, the chances're infinitely less than catching AIDS. Ordinary folk can be infected by previous partners, but you're more likely to get it from those who've have gay sex.
What I'm saying, is that it's difficult to say that yes - go ahead and let gay men be blood donors. This's because safe sex isn't always practiced - as with heterosexual couples - but there are more gay AIDS patients than there are straight ones.
In AIDS.gov, American statistics show that overall, an estimated 1,194,039 people in the United States have been diagnosed with AIDS. In 2013, 13,712 people with an AIDS diagnosis died, and approx. 658,507 people in the US who were given an AIDS diagnosis, have died overall .Since the epidemic began, an estimated 311,087 MSM (men who have sex with men) with an AIDS diagnosis have died.
Quote: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.
This is one of the reasons why I don't agree with gay people donating their blood, but why it's not an easy decision. I think most of us, if it came to a life or death situation'd be prepared to take the risk, but I'd feel very uneasy, even though other diseases such as CJD can be passed on in that manner as well. This happened to a man over here in April 2013, who contracted it after he was given blood, but, as with catching hepatitis, the chances're infinitely less than catching AIDS. Ordinary folk can be infected by previous partners, but you're more likely to get it from those who've have gay sex.
Re: I don't agree with this!
Here is my totally unscientific take on this issue. My numbers come from the same Google search engine as yours and are for the year 2012.
- The population of the United States in 2012 was approximately 3.12 million people.
- 3.5-4% of the population claimed to be homosexual/bisexual (I'll go with 4%); that translates to 12,480,000 gay people.
- 38% of the general population are qualified to donate blood, i.e., 4,742,400 gays could be eligible.
- However, only 10% of the eligible population actually donate so that 472,240 gays would if they could.
- The 29,800 MSM diagnosed cases you cite represents 6% of the entire gay community of which 12.8% are unaware that they are infected. That is to say, 56,669 people, and presumably the ones we should worry about.
- Using the number from above, 38%, or 21,534 of the unknown infected people could donate, but only 10% or 2,153 actually would.
- Thus, of the 15.7 million annual donations .01% could possibly be contaminated.
-
Icey
Re: I don't agree with this!
Well I'm not biased against gay folk. They're human beings along with the rest of us, and what they do in their private lives is really no one else's business, BUT, their often frequent change of partners makes contracting the AIDS virus more likely, considering their practices.
It's basically that the virus can lay undetected for a long time before anything shows up, and might get through into donated blood supplies. I truly admire those who give blood with good intentions, but there's still a risk, even if it's small, and if more gay people're allowed to give their blood, the chances of infection grow. I think this's terrible, but it's just something which I think needs to be considered carefully.
It's basically that the virus can lay undetected for a long time before anything shows up, and might get through into donated blood supplies. I truly admire those who give blood with good intentions, but there's still a risk, even if it's small, and if more gay people're allowed to give their blood, the chances of infection grow. I think this's terrible, but it's just something which I think needs to be considered carefully.
Re: I don't agree with this!
I have to agree with Dennis on this one. Blood transfusions, in this day and age, aren't what they were back in the 1980's when poor Ryan White from Kokomo got AIDS due to a "bad" blood transfusion. Blood donations here are now screened, re-screened, and screened yet again, etc. The chances of obtaining a blood-borne pathogen from a transfusion are slim, indeed, although they DO exist. I used to be VERY well-versed on the current statistics, but since now, I work in orthopedics rather than in oncology or critical care, it's not necessary for me to perform transfusions nearly so often. Still, the chances of getting a blood-borne pathogen via: transfusion in this day and age is astronomically small. And, make no mistake about it: blood obtained from a promiscuous "straight" person can be every bit as "dangerous" as can blood from a gay male. Honestly?? If I were faced with the chance of dying imminently due to loss of blood, vs. the miniscule chance that I MIGHT get AIDS, Hep B, Hep C or any *other* blood-borne pathogen, I'd go for the transfusion. At least, it would buy me a good bit of time. And, as difficult as it is, in some parts, to even FIND blood donors, I think we should be happy that there are those out there who care enough about others that they are willing to donate such a life-giving substance to the rest of us...
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
-
Icey
Re: I don't agree with this!
I do agree that transmission of diseases like HIV through blood donations're not a huge risk comparative to population, but with the chances of blood taken from gay people being higher than those who're not, I'd personally prefer not to have it given to me at all. Naturally, if I was in a situation where it was necessary for me to receive donated blood, and I've been close to it, I'd take the chance just as most people would, but still maintain that I'd prefer gay people NOT to give it.
I'm fully aware that heterosexual couples can pick these things up, either from a previous partner who was a carrier or from infected needles etc., and I also know that the blood's screened as carefully as possible, but as aforesaid, the HIV virus which can lead to AIDS has the capability of not showing up for a long time, and cases might escape the screening.
It's one of those things which we have to personally weigh up in terms of dangers associated with transfusions, and for the biggest part, most people have their lives saved by them.
It sounds discriminatory to say that a gay person shouldn't donate blood. I can appreciate why they might feel offended by the idea, but in the UK, the government advisory committee, SABTO, states that the risk of transfusion of HIV infected blood would increase if MSM were allowed to donate blood.
The window to detect HIV can be as short as 7 to 21 days (RNA testing), or as long as three months (serology testing method). However, there's a small percentage of the population at 3% who still will not test positive after 3 months with serology testing.
I might be right in my way of thinking, or I might be wrong. Again, I admire the selflessness of those who give blood to help others, but where anybody's blood might be used (apart from those with haemophilia, for example), I still reserve the right to think that the gay community should perhaps not do it, merely because statistically, those from higher risk groups COULD pass something on, small as the chances may be. It's just a personal opinion, and rather than have a child of mine face needing a transfusion and objecting to it, I'd obviously agree that one should go ahead if it was to save them.
I'm fully aware that heterosexual couples can pick these things up, either from a previous partner who was a carrier or from infected needles etc., and I also know that the blood's screened as carefully as possible, but as aforesaid, the HIV virus which can lead to AIDS has the capability of not showing up for a long time, and cases might escape the screening.
It's one of those things which we have to personally weigh up in terms of dangers associated with transfusions, and for the biggest part, most people have their lives saved by them.
It sounds discriminatory to say that a gay person shouldn't donate blood. I can appreciate why they might feel offended by the idea, but in the UK, the government advisory committee, SABTO, states that the risk of transfusion of HIV infected blood would increase if MSM were allowed to donate blood.
The window to detect HIV can be as short as 7 to 21 days (RNA testing), or as long as three months (serology testing method). However, there's a small percentage of the population at 3% who still will not test positive after 3 months with serology testing.
I might be right in my way of thinking, or I might be wrong. Again, I admire the selflessness of those who give blood to help others, but where anybody's blood might be used (apart from those with haemophilia, for example), I still reserve the right to think that the gay community should perhaps not do it, merely because statistically, those from higher risk groups COULD pass something on, small as the chances may be. It's just a personal opinion, and rather than have a child of mine face needing a transfusion and objecting to it, I'd obviously agree that one should go ahead if it was to save them.
Re: I don't agree with this!
Well there you have it; logic verses intuition. It's a fact of human life and we are all indeed entitled to our opinions. I simple don't agree with forcing those opinions on the decisions other people make.
Re: I don't agree with this!
nothing earth shattering, just a comment on how there is a huge increase in women testing positive, due to the thinking being hetero is somehow 'safe'. n/m all the other crap one can catch.
apart from other stuff, also the houses of any gay people's I've ever seen, are not only 'fabulous', but spotless. like the neighbours we have here. i'm talking gleaming pots and pans, not a spec of dust, everything in its place, etc.
i'd drink their blood any day!
Re: I don't agree with this!
If vampires aren't worried about it, then I won't be either. 
-
Icey
Re: I don't agree with this!
I agree Yogi - but there you have good point you see, because if it's going to be a free-for-all, where gay folk can donate quite happily, the decision not to receive their blood (how would you know?) is taken out of the patient's hands unless they've previously had their own blood stored in case of an emergency, so the opinion of medics and government IS being forced onto people.
There was a fairly recent case over here of a couple objecting to their child having a transfusion (for whatever reason), but it went ahead anyway. The same goes for certain treatments which might not be given by those who "consider" them un-necessary or useless, and yet've worked when the patient's managed to've been treated abroad. No one should be forced into having something that they don't want, but in those two cases, both worked, so, yes, I agree that I'd not LIKE to think of having blood from a gay person, however the small the risk may be, BUT, in all honesty, I most likely would if it was vital.
Vikki - I agree about cleanliness amongst people from the gay community that I personally know as well, but being clean in person or around the house doesn't stop someone from picking up HIV. In a large number of cases, homosexual couples don't remain totally faithful to their partners, hence the chance of picking something up being higher - because of the groups they fraternize with.
The percentage of women being found to have the virus's increased, but they wouldnt've got it if they, or a partner would've been careful about who they had sex with and practised safe methods. HIV's only caught by an infected person's bodily fluids, but people being people, go out and do what they do without giving much thought to what they might end up with. This goes for herpes, chlamydia and a whole host of STIs which, if they aren't treated accordingly, can lead to cancer and other problems. These days in particular, I don't think it's wise to have multiple partners, although just one could turn out to be dangerous. I think everyone of age to consent should be health-tested quite regularly, and learn to use caution. Not so easily done though. : (
There was a fairly recent case over here of a couple objecting to their child having a transfusion (for whatever reason), but it went ahead anyway. The same goes for certain treatments which might not be given by those who "consider" them un-necessary or useless, and yet've worked when the patient's managed to've been treated abroad. No one should be forced into having something that they don't want, but in those two cases, both worked, so, yes, I agree that I'd not LIKE to think of having blood from a gay person, however the small the risk may be, BUT, in all honesty, I most likely would if it was vital.
Vikki - I agree about cleanliness amongst people from the gay community that I personally know as well, but being clean in person or around the house doesn't stop someone from picking up HIV. In a large number of cases, homosexual couples don't remain totally faithful to their partners, hence the chance of picking something up being higher - because of the groups they fraternize with.
The percentage of women being found to have the virus's increased, but they wouldnt've got it if they, or a partner would've been careful about who they had sex with and practised safe methods. HIV's only caught by an infected person's bodily fluids, but people being people, go out and do what they do without giving much thought to what they might end up with. This goes for herpes, chlamydia and a whole host of STIs which, if they aren't treated accordingly, can lead to cancer and other problems. These days in particular, I don't think it's wise to have multiple partners, although just one could turn out to be dangerous. I think everyone of age to consent should be health-tested quite regularly, and learn to use caution. Not so easily done though. : (
Re: I don't agree with this!
-
Icey
Re: I don't agree with this!
Yes, this's what I've just basically said. Heterosexual couples can find that one or both've picked up a virus, or one passed it on to the other sometimes, but this means that one (or both) must've had sexual contact with an infected person, who might've been bisexual - unless they've had unprotected sex with a drug addict who might be a high risk, or an infected haemophiliac who didn't say anything.
You can't reasonably expect those who split as a couple not to have further relationships, and they don't even HAVE to split up to be tempted, but I don't think it's worth the worry of what MIGHT happen. If I was single again, I'd be extremely choosy about another partner, whether it was a short or long relationship, and wouldn't dream of having sex with someone new without taking precautions. In fact, I'd have to get to know them well first, and maybe even insist on a health check if someone was in it for the long-term. I'm serious. I'm not into one-night stands and quick flings anyway ... even if it was Brad! LOL!
You can't reasonably expect those who split as a couple not to have further relationships, and they don't even HAVE to split up to be tempted, but I don't think it's worth the worry of what MIGHT happen. If I was single again, I'd be extremely choosy about another partner, whether it was a short or long relationship, and wouldn't dream of having sex with someone new without taking precautions. In fact, I'd have to get to know them well first, and maybe even insist on a health check if someone was in it for the long-term. I'm serious. I'm not into one-night stands and quick flings anyway ... even if it was Brad! LOL!