Blood donation: is it time to end the ban on homosexuals?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Assuming safety is maintained, should homosexuals be allowed to donate blood?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
C

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Texashiker said:
Anal sex has a higher rate (up to 18 times higher) of HIV transmission then vaginal sex.
Click to expand...

So you support interrogating heterosexuals about their sex lives and banning those that engage in anal sex?

Maybe we should only allow blood donations from virgins.
 
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
zsdersw said:
That's totally irrelevant. Donated blood is screened for diseases, including HIV.
Click to expand...

totally irrelevant. less tainted blood received = less tainted blood that could slip past screening.

sorry but i voted no.
 
S

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
No, just HELL NO. Extremely high risk group for aids including high risk of transmission. Not just no, but NEVER.

It's like asking if we should allow folks who travel to africa and have prostitute parties to donate. Bad idea all around.
 
N

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
what percentage of the population are gay men?

what percentage of the people that have HIV are gay men?


We aren't really lacking for donated blood because gay men aren't donating, are we?

It would seem to me that adding risk to donated blood to get a very tiny additional amount of donated blood - simply isn't worth the risk.
 
Sunburn74

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,076
2,635
136
zsdersw said:
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012...u-s-ban-on-gay-donors-is-examined/?hpt=hp_bn1

What do you think? Assuming the safety of the blood supply is maintained, should homosexuals be allowed to donate blood? Why?
Click to expand...

Nope. Absolutely not.I'm not going to go into the science of HIV testing (which I can talk quite extensively about), but just know that right now about 1 in 1.5 million bags of blood are infected. Considering that about 15 million bags of blood are collected each year in the US, that means that there are about 10 or so bags floating about each year that are capable of infecting someone with HIV (attack rate is about 95% via blood transfusion). Now, blood products don't always get used, they often expire on the shelves, and so on, but even with that there are about 3 people a year who actually get HIV via blood products.

The reason is that if you are very early in the disease you won't have antibodies, may not have the antigens, and may not have a high enough viral load for commerical viral load tests to pick it up (most research level laboratories can detect up to 1 unit/ml, whilst most commercial labs have a detection floor of about 50 units/ml). Those are the three tests used to pick up HIV and they are pretty darn good, but pretty darn good isn't 100 percent.

All we can do to improve is to continue to exclude high risk groups with better screening. If anything we should be more stringent because we still have the same problems with Hep C as well.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
zsdersw said:
That's totally irrelevant. Donated blood is screened for diseases, including HIV.
Click to expand...

Have you ever watched the movie "and the band played on"?

When HIV was first making its presence known, researchers noticed a lot of people with this new disease also had hepatitis.

Researchers suggested that blood centers start screening for hepatitis, the answer was "do you know how much that will cost?".

They did not have a test for HIV, but they did have a hepatitis test. If the blood centers tested for hepatitis, they could have prevented a lot of HIV infections. But the screening was cost prohibitive. It would have cost too much money to screen and dispose of the infected blood.

Also, the first HIV antibodies do not appear until around 4 - 6 months after infection.

There is a window that a person can be infected and test negative.


CharlesKozierok said:
So you support interrogating heterosexuals about their sex lives and banning those that engage in anal sex?
Click to expand...

To protect public health, yes, we should do whatever it takes.
 
Last edited:
I

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
From what I understand about HIV testing it's still at the point where we're better off excluding higher risk groups from donating. Obviously not all gay men are high risk but from a macro perspective it probably make sense to say "no homos!"

FWIW I'm also permanently banned from donating blood because I lived in Cameroon.
 
N

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
1/5 Gay men has HIV. Given that gay/bi people make up around 4% of the population. It seems that the risk reward profile says it should not be allowed.
 
cybrsage

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I said we should allow it - but I assumed we had good, cheap tests for HIV. Since gay men are a high risk group (in the US) for HIV, and since we do not have a blood shortage, we should not allow gay men to give blood.

If there is a sudden need then it would be stupid to deny them - immediate need far outpaces the risk.
 
zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Texashiker said:
Have you ever watched the movie "and the band played on"?

When HIV was first making its presence known, researchers noticed a lot of people with this new disease also had hepatitis.

Researchers suggested that blood centers start screening for hepatitis, the answer was "do you know how much that will cost?".

They did not have a test for HIV, but they did have a hepatitis test. If the blood centers tested for hepatitis, they could have prevented a lot of HIV infections. But the screening was cost prohibitive. It would have cost too much money to screen and dispose of the infected blood.

Also, the first HIV antibodies do not appear until at least 6 months after infection.

There is at least a 6 month window that a person can be infected and test negative.
Click to expand...

All blood is already tested for HIV, etc. anyway.. so the cost isn't an issue.

I also wonder how many lie about having sex with men.. and how that kinda screws the system. Guys who are toward the "straight" end of the spectrum and on the DL will regularly lie about their homosexual sexual activities.
 
Last edited:
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
zsdersw said:
Probably not, but that's not the point. The point is that more blood is needed.
Click to expand...

who says?

why are you so butthurt about being denied donation??

i cant donate blood either because i was stationed in Europe for 4 year and the base bought British beef so because of mad cow... me or my wife can never give blood.

deal with it.
 
Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
zsdersw said:
All blood is tested for HIV, etc. anyway.. so the cost isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

New needles should not be an issue, but to save money some hospitals reuse medical supplies.

How many cases of Hep C have been caused by doctors and hospitals trying to cut cost?

You did not address the window where someone can be infected and test negative.
 
cybrsage

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
OutHouse said:
damn dude read sunbuns reply. that alone should be enough for you to drop it.
Click to expand...

His post is what made me change my stance. Until we have a sudden need for blood there is no reason to add a high risk group into the blood supply.

I understand it sucks if a gay man wants to give blood - but it is one of the effects of the lifestyle choice.
 
zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
OutHouse said:
who says?

why are you so butthurt about being denied donation??

i cant donate blood either because i was stationed in Europe for 4 year and the base bought British beef so because of mad cow... me or my wife can never give blood.

deal with it.
Click to expand...

OutHouse said:
damn dude read sunbuns reply. that alone should be enough for you to drop it.
Click to expand...

Who says I'm "butthurt"? Have I expressed any rage in this thread?

Why should I drop it? It's my thread.. I'll keep posting in it if I want to. If you have a problem with that maybe you should go do something else.
 
zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Texashiker said:
What else do you suggest? Put people through a lie detector?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to obsess over risk you have to acknowledge all of the risks. Lots of men will claim to be straight but do have sex with other men... and deny it to anyone who asks.
 
Harrod

Harrod

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2010
1,900
21
81
I'll vote no as well, I used to have a friend who died because of the result of getting infected due to a blood transfusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom