Should gays be allowed to donate blood?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
FYI - People who have recently traveled overseas aren't allowed to donate blood either. This isn't discrmination on the Red Cross' part. It is pre-screening to reduce the chance of contaminated blood entering the system.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: BigJ
Statistically speaking, isn't anal sex in general far more dangerous when it comes to contracting STDs/VDs?

I know this is going to sound really funny...

When you consider that when people have anal sex it usually means that the rectum is stretched bigger than it is supposed to be, and a stiff object is inserted, unlike what it is used to, you'll understand that there is often slight to serious tearing of the rectum as an object forces its way in, and the rubbing on one's sensative inards is likely to cause some damage too. All of this means that blood is more likely to be shed, thus making blood transfusions between partners more common. Which is why people having anal sex need to protect themselves moreso than anyone else. The tearing of the rectum is also common in rape victims, where time hasn't been taken to "warm up" the region to an object being inserted.


That being said, so long as a person gets tested before they give blood, I don't see what the problem is. If I was in need of blood I don't care who it came from as long as it kept me alive. Although I thought I remembered hearing that some STDs can take up to a year to show up in tests, by that time the blood would likely be used up.
 

IHYLN

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
1,519
0
0
How is this any different from Insurance companies screening drivers? No one screams bloody murder (no pun intended) about that.

If a driver (gay male) has a bad driving record (history of medical problems) then the insurance company will refuse to carry them. Same holds true for any blood bank because it all comes down to liability. Unfortunately the blood screening process isn't 100% because some viruses and STDs can remain dormant and undetected by today's equipment.

Think rationally people.

 

EvilHomer

Senior member
Jul 11, 2002
329
0
76
Well I think you are talking on an individual basis and we are talking about discriminating groups..... but the same can be said for insurance companies that give men, red cars , people that live in cities higher rates because of past statistics..
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: IHYLN
How is this any different from Insurance companies screening drivers? No one screams bloody murder (no pun intended) about that.

If a driver (gay male) has a bad driving record (history of medical problems) then the insurance company will refuse to carry them. Same holds true for any blood bank because it all comes down to liability. Unfortunately the blood screening process isn't 100% because some viruses and STDs can remain dormant and undetected by today's equipment.

Think rationally people.

Are you comparing homosexual sex to a bad driving record? Because they don't exclude you for just medical problems. You can't give blood if you have had homosexual sex in a certain period of time.
 

Koing

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
Oct 11, 2000
16,843
2
0
Test the dam blood and if it is fine give them the go ahead. If not then don't simple as that.

I do hope they test the blood before giving it to someone else.

Koing
 

IHYLN

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
1,519
0
0
insurance companies discriminate against high risk groups such as ages between 18-25 and if they are male/female. That is just the tip of the iceberg for insurance companies though.

As for me comparing homosexual sex and a bad driving record, no. Read again, I said medical history is comparable to a driving record.
 

Paulson

Elite Member
Feb 27, 2001
10,689
0
0
www.ifixidevices.com
It doesn't matter because everybody's blood gets tested... I think if they were smart they'd accept it and if they had to get rid of it they could just throw it away...
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Paulson
It doesn't matter because everybody's blood gets tested... I think if they were smart they'd accept it and if they had to get rid of it they could just throw it away...

As has already been mentioned, testing is not 100%. Some STDs can lie dormant while others are not detected 100% of the time. The Red Cross is not doing this to discriminate but to ensure the safety of those that receive the blood.
 

hysperion

Senior member
May 12, 2004
837
0
0
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: rbloedow
I'd certainly say that I'm no more at risk any other person. If you practice safe sex, waht's the problem?

Partly the problem is there is no way to determine if the donator has been practicing safe sex. This and the fact it can take up to 3 months for the signs of AIDS/HIV infection to show on a test is the reason we are banned from doing this. While this is true for straights just as much as gays it is the fact that they ask if you have ever had anal sex before which bars many gays, and yes straights too, from giving the gift of life. Simply because, If you answer yes to any of the sex based prequalification questions you are turned away. I see this as understandable as no one would want their gift of life to be the ultimate death of someone else. I know I could not bear the thought that my one time neglgence in bed led to anothers death, and will ultimately lead to mine as well.

So should gays be allowed to donate? YES! But we need to improve our detection technology for the AIDS/HIV virus, FIRST, and we are getting there slowly. Better yet, we simply need to find a cure for this plague of mankind so no one has to worry about years of endless wasting away simply waiting to die.


Gift of life my ass...more like the gift of $1000 a pint to the red cross to sell to the hospitals and pay their ceo 500k a year. Don't kid yourself, their advertising sure has worked well on you. Red cross advertising = debeers.....
 

Cobalt

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2000
4,642
1
81
Originally posted by: rbloedow
I'd certainly say that I'm no more at risk any other person. If you practice safe sex, waht's the problem?

No such thing as safe sex. It's safer sex. There is always risk. *This doesn't reflect my opinion blah blah.*
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: IHYLN
insurance companies discriminate against high risk groups such as ages between 18-25 and if they are male/female. That is just the tip of the iceberg for insurance companies though.

As for me comparing homosexual sex and a bad driving record, no. Read again, I said medical history is comparable to a driving record.

This is true, but you put the driver as a gay male. Are you assuming that gay males have bad medical records?
But you see, medical records are not what this thread is about. If that was what it was about, there would be no question.
Bad medical records would keep any donater, straight or gay, from giving blood.
Homosexuals cannot give blood if they have engaged in homosexual sex within a certain period of time, it has nothing to do with medical records. They ask you if you have, or haven't. If you have, they will not take your blood.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Paulson
It doesn't matter because everybody's blood gets tested... I think if they were smart they'd accept it and if they had to get rid of it they could just throw it away...

As has already been mentioned, testing is not 100%. Some STDs can lie dormant while others are not detected 100% of the time. The Red Cross is not doing this to discriminate but to ensure the safety of those that receive the blood.

What are these STDs that can remain dormant? Please give specific examples.

Is the blood filtered in any way prior to use, or stored for a period of time before use?
 

PunDogg

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2002
4,529
1
0
i say they can just as long as they pass all the tests and all, the same thing everyone else has to go through

Dogg
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: cobalt
Originally posted by: rbloedow
I'd certainly say that I'm no more at risk any other person. If you practice safe sex, waht's the problem?

No such thing as safe sex. It's safer sex. There is always risk. *This doesn't reflect my opinion blah blah.*

There's risk eating a chicken sandwich. If the chicken wasn't cooked properly, you might get salmonella poisoning. You might choke on a chicken bone. You could be allergic to the mayonaise... life is about managing risks, if you want to avoid risk completely then you need to stop living.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0

this might have been answered, but are people excuded on the basis of behaviors, or identity? If anal sex does put you at significantly increased risk of contracting HIV/ AIDS, then maybe it is a good idea to rule out people who have engaged in that practice. But not all gay people have anal sex, anyway. I can't help but feel excluding gay people might be providing a false sense of security. The biggest growth group in terms of new HIV infections are Black and Latino women. They are contracting HIV from African-American men on "the down low" - they have sex with other men, but don't consider themselves to be gay. Women who have sex with these men wouldn't even know that these guys are having sex with other men.
 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
1
0
Originally posted by: GeekDrew
OK... so create a testing procedure that we must go through in order to give blood. It would be a PITA, and I think unfair, but I'd still do it.

<gets a bit choked up>

Over 50 students asked the American Red Cross volunteers at my old high school why they wouldn't let me donate blood... the only thing they would say is "Because he's gay."

Of course, I had to explain myself every other time the Red Cross came to my office for the next two years, because I was the only staff member in the main office that wasn't giving blood...
I WOULD feel sorry for you, but it makes no sense why you didn't just go and then label the bag as "don't use." They leave the room and tell you to put a sticker on the bag. You can either use the "use my blood" sticker or the "don't use my blood" sticker. Much better way to do things.

Now that that's said... SYRINGER, JUST GO AWAY!!! YOU HAVE 8,000+ POSTS AND YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHICH FVCKING FORUM THIS BELONGS IN?!?! AHHHH!!!! LEAVE! STOP POSTING!!!
 

TitanDiddly

Guest
Dec 8, 2003
12,696
1
0
I think that the higher risk of disease merits the banning of the blood.

I'm sure among the different races there's higher rates among certain ones as well. Should they be banned as well?
Not sure about races, but the Red Cross/blood centers are very cautious about who can donate with regard to being at-risk.
 

aplefka

Lifer
Feb 29, 2004
12,014
2
0
This thread has 7 pages of replies? What the hell is gonna happen to you? Are you gonna become gay too?

And how are they more prone to get diseases?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: aplefka
This thread has 7 pages of replies? What the hell is gonna happen to you? Are you gonna become gay too?

And how are they more prone to get diseases?

How bout you read the thread next time instead of spouting off?
 

intogamer

Lifer
Dec 5, 2004
19,219
1
76
Originally posted by: GeekDrew
Absolutely. I've tried to donate blood several times, and I'm turned away (of course) every time. It's stupid. I've had some friends and family that have needed blood... but I wasn't allowed to donate any.

:anger;

:roll: