Should gay men be allowed to donate blood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Triumphguy is being ignored here. The FDA site says that “men who have sex with men” cannot donate. Triumphguy says that not all gay men have sex with men. So some gay men are not “men who have sex with men”.

What’s so hard to understand about that? 🤷

Here’s the FDA question:
What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?
Click to expand...
It does not say that celibate men of any stripe are excluded, only those with “low numbers of partners”. Zero isn’t a low number, it’s no number at all.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Triumphguy is being ignored here. The FDA site says that “men who have sex with men” cannot donate. Triumphguy says that not all gay men have sex with men. So some gay men are not “men who have sex with men”.

What’s so hard to understand about that? 🤷

Here’s the FDA question:

It does not say that celibate men of any stripe are excluded, only those with “low numbers of partners”. Zero isn’t a low number, it’s no number at all.
Click to expand...
FDA Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and Answers
What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?
Click to expand...
Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.
Click to expand...
 
triumphguy said:
For people who are chaste?

What the FDA says is that it needs a new questionnaire,
Click to expand...
“In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.” - FDA

I hope the FDA will stick to the science and not give in to the emotional appeals and political bully tactics of the “gay” lobby.
 
triumphguy said:
What the FDA says is that it needs a new questionnaire,
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. Does the questionnaire literally exclude “gay” men? If so, that is outrageous, since being gay is not a sexual activity. I thought the questionnaire excluded “men who have sex with men.”
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I don’t understand your point. “Celibate” is not the same thing as “monogamous” or “having few sex partners.” Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
“Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.” - FDA

The FDA is basically saying that they have no way of identifying who is lying and who is telling the truth. For the sake of everyone’s health (since anyone of us or our loved ones could need blood one day) they have to base their decision on the statistics for what groups of people are at the highest risk. It would be unreasonable to expect them to do an investigation to dig into each individual’s sexual history and try to determine if they are lying or telling the truth about being celibate or to just take someone’s word for it when people can easily lie.

Avoiding the risk to the entire public is currently more of priority to the FDA than someone getting their feelings hurt by not being able to give their blood. And these strict standards for people in high risk groups are not limited to homosexuals. For example, someone could be a heterosexual but an IV drug user who is sure that he doesn’t have AIDS. They can’t just take their word for it.

There are many cases in life where people are justly discriminated against. For example, an employer has one job opening. Ten people apply for the position, but only one gets the job. The other nine have to accept it and move on.
 
livingwordunity said:
“In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.” - FDA

I hope the FDA will stick to the science and not give in to the emotional appeals and political bully tactics of the “gay” lobby.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I am not taking on behalf of a gay lobby.:mad:

I am trying to treat like as like.

A macho man who runs around every weekend is far more likely to have an STD than a chaste man with SSA.

Compare chaste to chaste, and licentiousness to licentiousness.
 
triumphguy said:
Excuse me, but I am not taking on behalf of a gay lobby.:mad:

I am trying to treat like as like.

A macho man who runs around every weekend is far more likely to have an STD than a chaste man with SSA.

Compare chaste to chaste, and licentiousness to licentiousness.
Click to expand...
See post #28.
 
livingwordunity said:
“Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.” - FDA

The FDA is basically saying that they have no way of identifying who is lying and who is telling the truth. For the sake of everyone’s (since anyone of us or our loved ones could need blood one day) they have to base their decision on the statistics for what groups of people are at the highest risk. It would be unreasonable to expect them to do an investigation to dig into each individual’s sexual history and try to determine if they are lying or telling the truth about being celibate.

Avoiding the risk to the entire public is currently more of priority to the FDA than someone getting their feelings hurt by not being able to give their blood. And these strict standards for people in high risk groups are not limited to homosexuals. For example, someone could be a heterosexual but an IV drug user who is sure that he doesn’t have AIDS. They can’t just take their word for it.

There are many cases in life where people are justly discriminated against. For example, an employer has one job opening. Ten people apply for the position, but only one gets the job. The other nine have to accept it and move on.
Click to expand...
I still don’t understand the survey. Does the FDA ask if you are gay, or does it ask if you are a man who has had sex with men? If it asks the latter, then there are probably a good number of openly gay men who are eligible to donate, since they are not men who have sex with men.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I still don’t understand the survey. Does the FDA ask if you are gay, or does it ask if you are a man who has had sex with men? If it asks the latter, then there are probably a good number of openly gay men who are eligible to donate, since they are not men who have sex with men.
Click to expand...
The FDA is saying that if they use a questionnaire it has to be weighed with the statistical evidence. They are saying that there is currently no evidence to give them a good reason to change their policy. And they don’t want to change it without evidence. In other words, as it stands there is only emotional appeals and political pressure from the “gay” lobby driving this demand for a change and zero science.
 
I checked the site, and it’s MSM (men who have sex with men) who are prohibited from donating blood. So gay men aren’t prohibited, unless they have had sex with other men.

Good on ya, FDA! 👍

(And no, there’s no implication in the FDA literature that gay celibates are likely to lie about being celibate. Only that gay monogamists are likely to lie about being monogamous.)
 
livingwordunity said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right, which is why I dropped CNN as a source news.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
You are exactly right, which is why I dropped CNN as a source news.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I used to think that CNN was not as bad as MSNBC. But now I think they are just as bad. The AIDS Awareness Campaign itself was a grass roots movement that started in “the gay community”. I’m old enough to remember all the famously homosexual actors and musician celebrities that were dying of AIDS during the beginning of the epidemic. Yet CNN doesn’t even mention the word “gay” or “homosexual” in their so-called “fast facts”.
 
People who engage in risky behavior should be banned from donating blood. But, that doesn’t mean I think we should exclude people with SSA just because they have SSA.

I would anecdotally like to say something about AIDS though…I’ve been an ICU nurse for nearly 8 years now. And as a professional I’m much more afraid of contracting Hepatitis C than AIDS. Hep C just scares me much more although both diseases are pretty horrible. I’ve maybe taken care of a total of 4 patients with HIV/AIDS in my entire career…Whereas Hep C, I take care of 1-2 people/month with this disease, and it is horrible (But, like I said, I’m an ICU nurse, so by time these people reach ICU a majority of them look close to death). But what is even more scarey is that 75% of people with Hep C…don’t even know they have it.
identifyhepc.org/about-hepatitis-c/
 
Millie123 said:
People who engage in risky behavior should be banned from donating blood. But, that doesn’t mean I think we should exclude people with SSA just because they have SSA.
Click to expand...
How is the blood center supposed to know whether they are telling the truth about being a virgin or lying? What if someone who is an IV needle drug addict comes into a blood center, and they swear up and down that they have always used a clean needle? Should the blood center take their word for it?
 
livingwordunity said:
How is the blood center supposed to know whether they are telling the truth about being a virgin or lying? What if someone who is an IV needle drug addict comes into a blood center, and they swear up and down that they have always used a clean needle? Should the blood center take their word for it?
Click to expand...
So your position is that SSA celibate men or gay celibates should call themselves “men who have sex with men” even if they do not have sex with men, because the blood center shouldn’t take their word for it that they do not actually have sex with men?

:ehh:
 
livingwordunity said:
How is the blood center supposed to know whether they are telling the truth about being a virgin or lying? What if someone who is an IV needle drug addict comes into a blood center, and they swear up and down that they have always used a clean needle? Should the blood center take their word for it?
Click to expand...
I’ve been in this business long enough to feel that I can not take hardly anyone (Men, women, homosexuals, or heterosexuals)at their word. In fact many times I have become very cynical feeling that all anyone ever does anymore is lie.Even as I looked them in the eyes and told them “I’m your nurse, not a cop. We just need to know the truth, so that we can properly take care of you.” And I’ve had people still lie. I’ve taken care of meth addicts who have convincingly expressed that “I have not used in a year” as I’m staring at their Urine tox screen results showing that they are indeed positive for meth.

Another anecdotal story though…I once took care of a woman who had a history of seizures. They were making adjustments to her seizure medicine when her urine tox screen came back positive for PCP…I was absolutely convinced that she was a drug addict on PCP. However both she and her husband vehemently denied it, and were strongly adamant that they did not do drugs. When further evaluation of her medicines by our pharmacists and neurologists showed that one of her current medications can create a false positive for PCP on drug tests. So they were telling the truth, and I was wrong as well as our technology. And yes I feel bad about it.

So as you can see, I have hard time taking people at their word, it’s definitely something I need to work on. I just wish people would stop lying to me.
 
St_Francis said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are correct. CDC estimates it at 20%, though the rate also varies by geography with Baltimore has the highest rate (31%) while Atlanta has the lowest rate (6%). After the screening the occurrence of blood donors that are found to be HIV positive is about 0.5 per 10,000 or 1 per 10,000 for first time donors[1]. In California 70% of new AIDs infections are estimated to have come from male-to-male sexual contact[2]

Some one could get a bad batch of blood from blood either being taken during that undetectable window, mistakes in testing, or the presence of an HIV strain that escapes current detecting techniques.

It appears that this isn’t an instance of unjustified discrimination. Available data supports using the sexual behaviour of the potential donor as an indicator for risk of AIDs for the state of California.

[1] - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20345570

[2] - kff.org/hivaids/state-indicator/estimated-numbers-of-aids-diagnoses-adults-and-adolescents-by-transmission-category/?state=CA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top