Should It Be a Right For Promiscuous Gay Men to Donate Blood?

[King Joffery]

Can't they just test them beforehand? Or at least test the donated blood before they use it? I guess it's cost related, but I would think that they would test all blood before injecting it into someone else. I don't know how it all works, but I hope they aren't just using the honor system to distinguish clean blood from dirty blood, before they actually use it.

Testing isnt 100% I believe. And sexually active gay men are something like 25 times more likely to contract HIV. The reward to risk ratio of using gay blood simply isnt worth it.

 

[ElKarlo]

I have no idea whether there are concrete health reasons to avoid sexually active gay men donating blood, but that's the only question that matters here imo. There's no right to donate blood. If it's riskier, it may be refused. if it isn't, the n it should be accepted.

This. If it puts you into a category that makes you more likely to be risky, sorry. That’s too bad

 

[ElKarlo]

And if your blood passes, they keep persistently calling and emailing you every couple weeks afterwards to try to get you to come back and surrender another pint of blood.

I only give three times a year. That’s the hard limit in Japan. Oddly enough. I actually like donating as it keeps my cholesterol levels lower

 

[Loiosh]

Gay or bi men can't donate blood in Canada.

Since July 2019, the ban was lifted completely. Since June 2019, a 3-month deferral period for gay and bi men donating blood was implemented throughout Canada. Canadian Blood Services plans to end its deferral period by the end of 2021.

 

[JSN]

Correlation =/= causation

Hetro females are FAR more likely to have HIV than gay females, should we ban them from donating?

Minorities are also far more likely, should they be banned?

Heck maybe we should only allow straight white males to give blood.

This is not an example of correlation doesn’t equal causation. Literally no one thinks that being a gay man causes AIDS.

 

[BIKES!]

This is not an example of correlation doesn’t equal causation. Literally no one thinks that being a gay man causes AIDS.

That's not entirely true. I'm sure many liberals believe that tons of people on the other side literally believe that statement. Thus, they believe there are people who believe something so silly.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This.

Isn't blood testing a regular thing?

If it is tested and clean, what's the problem?

Is the worry they use condoms less? Hell, it was rare for me to use a condom with girls, even randoms I picked up at the bar. You just trust their word that they are on birth control and clean.

In retrospect, I'm amazed I didn't catch something or knock someone else up before I settled down and got married. But condoms ruin the moment and remove a lot of the sensation so.....yeah.

Why did you bump this three year old thread? For what purpose?

 

[Papi Chulo]

The gays are fighting so that they can donate blood. They do not believe their lifestyle is risky. And they believe they are receiving bigotry by being turned away from giving blood.

And not only that they admit they are working to make sure that HIV homosexuals/bisexuals do not have to inform their sex partners that they have the AIDS virus.

This is part of the Democrat Party platform

 

[Halifax]

Why did you bump this three year old thread? For what purpose?

I honestly do not know what happened.

Sometimes my browser on my phone randomly makes every thread I see from years ago. I don;t know if its a button I accidentally hit on my phone or what

 

[Lord Coke]

The only people that should have a say in that are the donors and the blood collection services. However, I do believe that regardless of sexual orientation that proper testing of all blood should be conducted always. If a donor has a verifiable blood related disease then their blood should not be used for normal processes but still collected for potential use during critically low periods such as a natural disaster. In such condition I still believe the donor or a duly appointed rep should be notified of the issue and allowed to make the final decision on whether to role the dice or not.

The desire to save life is noble and should be pursued whenever possible and appropriate, but I strongly feel that the individual or their legally authorized rep are ultimately the authority on what will happen with ones body or what is put in it.

Do you have that attitude towards all private business? If you do, that is a defensible position. There was a time that safety standards were nonexistent for food. It was just between the farmer, the food company and the consumer. No warning labels can be required. No standards other than what the free market might demand. If not, why are you singling out blood?

 

[MRT]

I fully support an abundance of caution...so this is not an argument to let at-risk groups to donate blood. I believe that the standard is also not 'gay men', but 'men who have had sex with other men' over a certain period of time, which casts a MUCH wider net.

It is also important to understand that this policy is made out of a very high abundance of caution and is not reflective of an *actual* high risk.

That gay men are '26x more likely to contract HIV' sound rather ominous...but let's dig deeper:

- The *actual* risk depends upon the baseline risk for contracting HIV. 25x more likely than 1%...0.1%...0.01%...lower? HUGE difference.
- Also, '26x more likely' is the "average global risk"...which fails to account for all sorts of regionall differences, including HIV prevalence, attitudes/behaviours towards safer sex, access to condoms and other preventative measures, access to testing, etc.

The policy fails to account for people taking something like PrEP, which radically reduces the risk of contracting HIV (by 99% during sex, and by at least 74% for injection drug users, acc. to the CDC).

It also does not factor in that transmission risk is *critically* dependent upon the viral load of an infected person. If someone has an undetectable viral load, it is virtually impossible to transmit HIV to a partner (source). Important to note that this relates to sex transmission and not risk related to transfusion, which could be different.

Then blood test sensitivity needs to be considered. Clearly, there is nothing remotely close to a 100% failure rate for testing HIV-infected blood or else the problem would extend well beyond men who have sex with men.

In other words, the *actual* risk of contracting HIV for men who have sex with men is something greater than baseline, but nowhere near 26x greater for most in Western societies...and data on what additional risk this poses to the blood supply is AFAIK lacking because of all of these variables.

So, what we actually have is a policy that is in place out of an *extreme* abundance of caution and for the practical purposes of not having to try and account for all of those relevant variables for any 'at-risk' person seeking to donate. It simply easier to prohibit an entire at-risk group from donating blood altogether, regardless in the within-group risk variance.

I'm fine with that...but from a public messaging standpoint, and to reduce stigma, this is all worth noting.

 

[Officer Rick]

Why did you bump this three year old thread? For what purpose?

to show his thinly veiled hatred for gay people and his partisanship

 

[Officer Rick]

The gays are fighting so that they can donate blood. They do not believe their lifestyle is risky. And they believe they are receiving bigotry by being turned away from giving blood.

And not only that they admit they are working to make sure that HIV homosexuals/bisexuals do not have to inform their sex partners that they have the AIDS virus.

This is part of the Democrat Party platform

man it must suck to be so scared of literally everything and anything not in your little hate bubble

 

[HereticBD]

to show his thinly veiled hatred for gay people and his partisanship

Did you even read what was quoted or what he posted before screeching, Bat dad?

 

[Officer Rick]

Did you even read what was quoted or what he posted before screeching, Bat dad?

first off ...

it was a joke

second off stop pretending knowing my old name means something to me

its ok i know you are a foreigner and in the peoples republic of canada maybe go complain about Trudeau

 

[HereticBD]

first off ...

it was a joke

Sure it was. You certainly didn't just blindly assume some things and screeched. No Sir!

second off stop pretending knowing my old name means something to me

It's pretty embarrassing, being a guy who created multiple accounts to talk to himself and give himself likes. It doesn't get much more pathetic than that.

Pickle Rick too, huh? Hoo boy...

 

[Officer Rick]

Sure it was. You certainly didn't just blindly assume some things and screeched. No Sir!



It's pretty embarrassing, being a guy who created multiple accounts to talk to himself and give himself likes. It doesn't get much more pathetic than that.

Pickle Rick too, huh? Hoo boy...

again with this whataboutism?

all because you didnt like a post i made??

thanks for letting everyone know im living rent free in your head multiple times brah

kinda sad even seeing as those accounts are years old

but keep pretending to be an American patriot

 

[Teppodama]

Do you have that attitude towards all private business? If you do, that is a defensible position. There was a time that safety standards were nonexistent for food. It was just between the farmer, the food company and the consumer. No warning labels can be required. No standards other than what the free market might demand. If not, why are you singling out blood?

To be honest, I dont even remember writing it. Probably a bit drunk when I did. I also see I got some of it backward. I kept writing donor rather than recipient.

Basically All blood should be collected, all blood should be tested. Contaminated blood should be identified, held separately but still available by the choice of the recipient or someone legally able to speak for the recipient in the event of an emergency need and shortage of uncontaminated blood.

 

[HereticBD]

again with this whataboutism?

all because you didnt like a post i made??

Yeah, you don't seem annoyed at all, Bat Dad. It's probably why you tried to lie about it, when initially confronted...

It's okay. I'd be ashamed as fuck too, if I created multiple accounts to talk to myself and give myself likes. LOL.

 

[Lord Coke]

To be honest, I dont even remember writing it. Probably a bit drunk when I did. I also see I got some of it backward. I kept writing donor rather than recipient.

Basically All blood should be collected, all blood should be tested. Contaminated blood should be identified, held separately but still available by the choice of the recipient or someone legally able to speak for the recipient in the event of an emergency need and shortage of uncontaminated blood.

Ya I didn't realize this was a three year old thread when replying to you.