- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
All subjects should be tested for blood-borne illnesses prior to donating. The tests are simpler and barring that, all donated blood should be screened prior to use.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
R
robwar
Guest
There is another thread on this subject. And for your info all donated blood is screened for a bunch of diseases, not just HIV. People should contact American Red Cross for more info.
There are a bunch of risky behaviors that should ban people from donating such as multiple sex partners, IV drug use (drug use in general) etc.
S
St_Francis
Guest
On the one hand, something like 1/5 of homosexual men are HIV positive, and apparently blood tests don’t show the HIV status in the first few weeks. Could a recipient get HIV this way?
I am not allowed to donate blood because I was in Europe for a certain amount of time during a certain period. There are concerns about Crushack-Jacobs disease (sp?) which is thought to be a human varant of mad cow disease (which is much easier to spell).
Some are saying when it’s an emergency and you need blood, you don’t care about the long-term results (?), and they are always low on blood.
I think that the restrictions should remain in place if the blood supply would otherwise be endangered. I would like to give blood because I have a type that only 10% have, and that would free up some of the O for other people.
But I guess I am not trying to normalize traveling to Europe in the 80s so I don’t free discriminated against when people are trying to keep the blood supply safe.
I am not allowed to donate blood because I was in Europe for a certain amount of time during a certain period. There are concerns about Crushack-Jacobs disease (sp?) which is thought to be a human varant of mad cow disease (which is much easier to spell).
Some are saying when it’s an emergency and you need blood, you don’t care about the long-term results (?), and they are always low on blood.
I think that the restrictions should remain in place if the blood supply would otherwise be endangered. I would like to give blood because I have a type that only 10% have, and that would free up some of the O for other people.
But I guess I am not trying to normalize traveling to Europe in the 80s so I don’t free discriminated against when people are trying to keep the blood supply safe.
E
edwest2
Guest
A few words from the FDA:
fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm
Peace,
Ed
fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm
Peace,
Ed
T
triumphguy
Guest
And “Living in Britain for more than 6 months during the 80’s!”
It’s why I was barred from donating blood in Canada - Mad Cow disease.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Unless I am wrong, gay men have always been able to donate blood. It is people who have engaged in high risk sexual activity, both homosexual and heterosexual, that are barred.
A slight point perhaps, but there are many men with same sex attraction who struggle to live chaste single lives.
A slight point perhaps, but there are many men with same sex attraction who struggle to live chaste single lives.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
Gay men aren’t banned from donating blood. It’s “men who have sex with men” because a significant proportion of these men do not self-identify as gay.
Anyways, HIV doesn’t show up in a blood test for two weeks, which is why high risk groups, such as men who have sex with men, people who accept drugs or money in exchange for sex, or people who receive blood transfusions or clotting factor transfusions are not allowed to donate blood.
I think I saw a run through on the calculation, and it estimated that if men who have sex with men were allowed to donate blood, that it would result in about 30 new infections with HIV every year in the United States.
It’s very possible, though, that this could be controlled for by asking the men who have sex with men how many new partners they’ve had recently. That is, if we take the blood of men who have sex with men but don’t participate in the high risk behaviors for HIV prevalent among men who have sex with men, that it may be able to appear more equitable.
Anyways, HIV doesn’t show up in a blood test for two weeks, which is why high risk groups, such as men who have sex with men, people who accept drugs or money in exchange for sex, or people who receive blood transfusions or clotting factor transfusions are not allowed to donate blood.
I think I saw a run through on the calculation, and it estimated that if men who have sex with men were allowed to donate blood, that it would result in about 30 new infections with HIV every year in the United States.
It’s very possible, though, that this could be controlled for by asking the men who have sex with men how many new partners they’ve had recently. That is, if we take the blood of men who have sex with men but don’t participate in the high risk behaviors for HIV prevalent among men who have sex with men, that it may be able to appear more equitable.
A
asd72
Guest
Yourself and your partner should not have had sex with any other people during the window period (the time it takes between becoming infected and it showing up on a blood test). That would seem the most important thing. You can then be tested accurately for HIV prior to donating, HIV from sexual contact anyway.
I guess I can see how a gay person could feel offended by a blanket ban. If they meet the criteria of a monogamous relationship I would have no problem with it.
I guess I can see how a gay person could feel offended by a blanket ban. If they meet the criteria of a monogamous relationship I would have no problem with it.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Should it happen? No. Will it happen? Probably so since political correctness trumps truth in today’s culture. We could ask the same question about other high risk groups such as IV needle drug addicts.
Statistical fast facts on the physical and mental health of those who follow "the gay lifestyle"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11084255&postcount=17
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11084284&postcount=18
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11084352&postcount=19
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10981749&postcount=38
Now compare that to CNN’s omission of all of that data in their so-called “fast facts”:
cnn.com/2013/07/29/health/aids-hiv-fast-facts
Notice how in CNN completely omits any mention of how AIDS has impacted the “gay community”. The words “gay” or “homosexual” can’t even be found anywhere in it. Since the beginning of the AIDS awareness campaign they have always talked about how AIDS has had a devastating impact on homosexuals living the “gay lifestyle”. Now all of a sudden CNN omits it all and calls it “fast facts”. It’s an omission of a mountain of data that shows how “gay” and bisexual men have always been by far at the highest risk for getting AIDS in proportion to the rate that other groups get it. To me, it’s obvious that CNN made this omission to be politically correct so that people would believe that there’s nothing wrong with “gay” men donating blood.
Statistical fast facts on the physical and mental health of those who follow "the gay lifestyle"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11084255&postcount=17
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11084284&postcount=18
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11084352&postcount=19
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10981749&postcount=38
Now compare that to CNN’s omission of all of that data in their so-called “fast facts”:
cnn.com/2013/07/29/health/aids-hiv-fast-facts
Notice how in CNN completely omits any mention of how AIDS has impacted the “gay community”. The words “gay” or “homosexual” can’t even be found anywhere in it. Since the beginning of the AIDS awareness campaign they have always talked about how AIDS has had a devastating impact on homosexuals living the “gay lifestyle”. Now all of a sudden CNN omits it all and calls it “fast facts”. It’s an omission of a mountain of data that shows how “gay” and bisexual men have always been by far at the highest risk for getting AIDS in proportion to the rate that other groups get it. To me, it’s obvious that CNN made this omission to be politically correct so that people would believe that there’s nothing wrong with “gay” men donating blood.
C
Catherine_S
Guest
No one deserves special treatment when it comes to the safety of*blood donated for others! *There was a time when if you had suffered *
through tuberculosis you could not donate blood nor work in places *
*preparing or *serving food. One even had to declare on employment
applications that they had suffered in the past from tuberculosis!
The safety of the entire community far out weighs the desire of a few!
B
Bezant
Guest
I’m curious as to how you would enforce that prohibition effectively.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
By telling people the truth instead of lying to them, omitting statistical facts, and acting as if it makes no difference if someone lives “the gay lifestyle”. There’s a saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The AIDS Awareness Campaign itself began as a grass roots movement in “the gay community”. That’s because that’s where the crisis began. The idea was to tell homosexual men to use condoms, and they thought that would solve the problem. But it didn’t. The problem continued among actively homosexual men over the decades and even got worse at times. Now people are supposed to suddenly have amnesia about it.
Center for Disease Control’s Global AIDS Timeline:
“1981 -CDC reports first cases of rare pneumonia in young gay men – later determined to be AIDS-related – in June 5 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). This marks the official beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.” - CDC
“1 in 5 Gay/Bi Men Have HIV, Nearly Half Don’t Know” - WebMD
“Gay and bisexual men have comprised the largest proportion of the HIV epidemic in the United States since the first cases were reported in the 1980s, and that has not changed. They still comprise the greatest proportion of infections nationally.” - Obama
“CDC reports that HIV diagnoses among young gay men (ages 13-24) of all races and ethnicities rose between 2001 and 2006.” – Obama
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections” – CDC
“Given the starkness and the enduring nature of the disparate impact on gay and bisexual men, it is important to significantly reprioritize resources and attention on this community. The United States cannot reduce the number of HIV infections nationally without better addressing HIV among gay and bisexual men…Even though gay and bisexual men comprise only two percent of the U.S. population (4 percent of men)” – Obama (bold emphasis given in Obama’s 2010 Whitehouse report)
“Disparities in HIV infection also exist between gay and bisexual men and heterosexual populations. Recently, the CDC announced that gay and bisexual men in the United States are 44 to 86 times more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men, and 40 to 77 times more likely to become infected than women.” – Obama
“Gay and bisexual men comprise the majority of people with HIV who have died in the United States.” - Obama
Are we all supposed to just ignore this as CNN ignored it in their so-called “fast facts”?
Sources:
WebMD
CDC HIV/AIDS Global Epidemic Timeline
CDC - CDC Global HIV/AIDS Milestones - Global HIV/AIDS at CDC - Global HIV/AIDS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
T
triumphguy
Guest
There is nothing wrong (i.e., more inherently risky) with “gay” men donating blood, as long as they haven’t engaged in risky behaviour.
Are there NO chaste men with SSA? Is it not possible? Can a gay man NOT be a good Catholic? Don’t paint everyone with the same brush.
In the same way, there’s nothing wrong with Englishmen donating blood as long as they didn’t live in Britain for more than 6 months during the 80’s.
It’s the lifestyle, not the “gayness” or “Englishness” that makes someone’s blood unsafe.
E
edwest2
Guest
N
Neofight
Guest
Actually very great point…just as gays not parting in high risk sex should not effect the blood supply, and straight people who do partake in high risk sex should be restricted from blood donorship, gays who lead a chaste and celebit life are more morally righteous than straights who fornacate and commit adultery.
It’s not an issue of orientation or inclination, it’s an issue of doing what’s right, instead of what we a predisposed, or simply want to do…gay or straight!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
T
triumphguy
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The ones on the PC side of the argument care absolutely nothing about the statistics. They want what they want, period, and damned be the scientific statistical data and proportional figures as far as they are concerned. On one side of the argument is facts, statistics, and reason. And on the other side of the argument is emotional appeals and political pressure from the “gay” lobby. They know that the statistics are starkly against them, but they don’t care. That’s why CNN omitted a mountain of statistical data with surgical precision in their so-called “fast facts”. This has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with salesmanship.
- Status