FDA to let gays donate blood

[Sonikku]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-to-ease-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood

Interesting comments. D:

 

[master_shake_]

gay bashers are toxic people that should be culled like deer.

 

[IronWing]

FDA: putting the trans in transfusion!

 

[smackababy]

As if answering yes or no on that question stopped anyone anyway. We already screen the blood, so who cares?

 

[alzan]

Too bad Trollhiker isn't around; he'd have a blast with that article topic.

It's got almost everything he loves to get frothy about; gays, AIDS, and big gubermint's intrusion into peoples lives.

 

[nageov3t]

even the year-long wait seems ridiculous if we're talking about 2 HIV- guys having safe sex, but at least it's a marginal step in the right direction.

(side note, the year-old wait is also what straight people have to go through if they have unprotected sex with an HIV+ partner)

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! DONT LET that gay blood toxic people! IT will turn everyone else gay!!!























(lulz)



Seriously, a better question would be.... They actually ask for sexual orientation when donating blood??? Tha fuq?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Seriously, a better question would be.... They actually ask for sexual orientation when donating blood??? Tha fuq?

No, they ask "have you had sex with a same-sex partner at any point since 1976?" That question is changing to "have you had sex with a same-sex partner at any point in the last 365 days?" It's still preposterous to think that married gay men in a monogamous relationship are somehow this enormous risk, but at least they're taking steps in the right direction.

 

[TheSlamma]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! DONT LET that gay blood toxic people! IT will turn everyone else gay!!!


(lulz)



Seriously, a better question would be.... They actually ask for sexual orientation when donating blood??? Tha fuq?

It's about 50 questions you have to go through.. takes longer than the donation portion.. I've donated a couple GALLONS worth over my lifetime. They ask about partners, prostitution, drug use, transfusions, travel outside of the US.. all kinds of stuff.

Which I appreciate them asking and screening the blood, my uncle was a passenger in a car accident in the 60's and got a transfusion which gave him hepatitis which eventually killed his liver and kidneys

 

[smackababy]

Seriously, a better question would be.... They actually ask for sexual orientation when donating blood??? Tha fuq?

Not exactly. They ask if you've had sexual intercourse with man (if you're male) since 1977. And a few questions similar, such as if you're paid for sex since or had sex with a sex worker, etc. They try and screen out the high risk activities. They also ask if you've lived in Europe between a certain time (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease).

1977 seems to be the cutoff for when the gay begins. If you had sex with a man in 1976, you're not gay!

No, they ask "have you had sex with a same-sex partner at any point since 1976?" That question is changing to "have you had sex with a same-sex partner at any point in the last 365 days?" It's still preposterous to think that married gay men in a monogamous relationship are somehow this enormous risk, but at least they're taking steps in the right direction.

There needs to be some form of time limit, as it takes awhile for HIV to be detectable, straight or gay. It should ask if you've had unprotected anal sex in that time, and leave same sex out of it. It isn't the same sex part that is the high risk activity, it is the anal part due to the higher risk of micro tearing and fluid transfer.

 

[frostedflakes]

As if answering yes or no on that question stopped anyone anyway. We already screen the blood, so who cares?

Yeah can't really see if making much difference, anyone could have lied before.

And screening is very reliable but isn't 100%, which is why groups with rates of HIV, hepatitis, etc. that are significantly higher than the general population are prohibited from donating. As long as you have plenty of people from lower risk groups willing to donate, why take blood from higher risk groups, even if it may only increase the likelihood of diseased blood getting through screening by 0.0001% or whatever?

Lifetime ban is ridiculous, though. Although I guess 1 year ban is for all intents and purposes still a lifetime ban on blood donations from gay men? Going to preclude any sexually active gay males from donating (again assuming of course they don't just fib on the questionnaire).

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There needs to be some form of time limit, as it takes awhile for HIV to be detectable, straight or gay. It should ask if you've had unprotected anal sex in that time, and leave same sex out of it. It isn't the same sex part that is the high risk activity, it is the anal part due to the higher risk of micro tearing and fluid transfer.

Yes, but if you've been with a partner for over a year, both of you have tested negative for HIV/AIDS multiple times and you don't engage in other risk factors (sleeping around, intravenous drug use), then the risk of HIV is effectively zero. Gay professionals in long-term relationships are exactly the sort of people the FDA should want donating blood, as they tend to avoid risky behaviors (like most professionals), but the year-long moratorium on sex will still prevent them from donating. It's an inelegant solution to the problem of whether mitigating risk is worth bigoted profiling.

 

[Exophase]

As if answering yes or no on that question stopped anyone anyway. We already screen the blood, so who cares?

Not saying this as a justification for disallowing gay donors, but as far as I'm aware blood is screened in large batches. So a contamination loses a ton of other donations, not just the contaminator's.

 

[Subyman]

So they actually didn't let gays give blood? I guess since your blood controls your sexual orientation, that makes perfect sense.

 

[Spungo]

The comments appear to be blocked by proxy. I'll troll them when I get home. Say something about becoming temporarily gay after getting a blood transfusion. Woke up with a dick in my mouth! It must have been the gay blood that did it!

 

[highland145]

So they actually didn't let gays give blood? I guess since your blood controls your sexual orientation, that makes perfect sense.

My wife would be none too happy if I got a transfusion and turned gay.



Or maybe she would.


They don't ask how many women I slept with when I was single. Just stupid not to allow gays to donate.

 

[smackababy]

Yes, but if you've been with a partner for over a year, both of you have tested negative for HIV/AIDS multiple times and you don't engage in other risk factors (sleeping around, intravenous drug use), then the risk of HIV is effectively zero. Gay professionals in long-term relationships are exactly the sort of people the FDA should want donating blood, as they tend to avoid risky behaviors (like most professionals), but the year-long moratorium on sex will still prevent them from donating. It's an inelegant solution to the problem of whether mitigating risk is worth bigoted profiling.

I agree that certain gay (and straight) couples should be automatically allowed, but there is only so much they can do. They are simply trying to reduce the risk as much as possible to avoid contamination. And, since HIV takes 6+ months from contraction to even be detectable, there has to be some waiting period. A lot of states require you to wait 6 months to a year after a piecing or tattoo for the same reason as they are doing this.

This isn't specifically targeted against gays. They don't care if you are a homosexual. They simply care if you have engaged in a high risk activity.

 

[Exterous]

So they actually didn't let gays give blood? I guess since your blood controls your sexual orientation, that makes perfect sense.

I believe it is because there is a statistically higher chance of the blood containing hiv. They ban for a lot of other 'at risk' issues although this is a welcome change given they banned likely safe donors and the general lack of blood

 

[finglobes]

"So they actually didn't let gays give blood?"


The ban came about when something like 12,000 hemophiliacs got HIV/AIDS and died back in the 80s. Then as now homosexuals were the main carriers. They still account for very high rates of STDs, hepatitis, MRSA, HPV etc. Hard to think of any group more disease prone. Indeed its hard to thing of many groups who would engage in "bug chasing" - or flirting with catching HIV for "erotic" satisfaction (ugh). I believe it was it Rolling Stone that reported a high percentage of new HIV cases were bug chasers.

Alas the kooks in administration are now letting Ebola (wait until Ebola hits the right party in San Fran, Miami or NYC).into the country so it was a given the kooks would risk the blood supply for political purposes. Even gender identity disorder has gone from a recognized psychological issue to being better than normal in total disregard of science despite superficial claims otherwise.

Bug Chasing and Me
http://www.beyondpositive.org/2014/04/16/bug-chasing/

 

[Joepublic2]

I believe it is because there is a statistically higher chance of the blood containing hiv. They ban for a lot of other 'at risk' issues although this is a welcome change given they banned likely safe donors and the general lack of blood

I haven't donated since high school because it's not worth the pittance they pay out. It usually took me an hour/hour and a half to do the paperwork and the procedure and they pay 20/30$? How much do they make on that blood (how much do they bill insurance for if you need a transfusion?) I don't donate because I'm not a chump; if they can't/won't kick me back more than a few % of what they bill insurance for it's not worth it.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I was not aware they paid for blood.

I give blood because people need the stuff and I don't.

Also Blood is:

A) Perishable. Lasts about a month in a half in storage
B) Dangerous, so every single bag undergoes a litany of tests.
C) Requires careful and expensive transport to keep quality.

 

[Chaotic42]

I haven't donated since high school because it's not worth the pittance they pay out. It usually took me an hour/hour and a half to do the paperwork and the procedure and they pay 20/30$? How much do they make on that blood (how much do they bill insurance for if you need a transfusion?) I don't donate because I'm not a chump; if they can't/won't kick me back more than a few % of what they bill insurance for it's not worth it.

You get paid to donate blood? Weird. We get t-shirts and juice.

 

[Joepublic2]

I was not aware they paid for blood.

I give blood because people need the stuff and I don't.

Also Blood is:

A) Perishable. Lasts about a month in a half in storage
B) Dangerous, so every single bag undergoes a litany of tests.
C) Requires careful and expensive transport to keep quality.

Again, if they need more blood they should offer more money for it. They have people lined up around the block if they offered 100$+ a donation. Just read that the average cost to insurance for a transfusion is 1800-3000$ so really even if their current cost structure can't absorb the extra 100$ they should just tack it onto the final price. Apparently it would only raise cost to patients 5% or so in a worst case scenario.

 

[Joepublic2]

You get paid to donate blood? Weird. We get t-shirts and juice.

No, I'm in the habit of giving away things worth thousands of dollars for nothing in a capitalist society where everything I need sure as hell is monetized.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Again, if they need more blood they should offer more money for it. They have people lined up around the block if they offered 100$+ a donation. Just read that the average cost to insurance for a transfusion is 1800-3000$ so really even if their current cost structure can't absorb the extra 100$ they should just tack it onto the final price. Apparently it would only raise cost to patients 5% or so in a worst case scenario.

They probably would in an emergency scenario.

But the problem is that

A) Once again, blood goes bad, so having tons of blood in storage does absolutely nothing.
B) They have to test every single bag of blood, and you think that quintipling the supply of blood with lines around the block won't overwhelm the system?

They need a constant supply at a rate that they can keep up with, not a sin wave.