Thread: US to reconsider Gay Blood Donations

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healt...n-ban-20110726



But the Red Cross, always struggling with blood shortages, and other groups such as gay-rights organizations oppose the blanket policy. They say that there are other ways to screen out donors at high risk of HIV infection. Sen. John Kerry, D–Mass., has also been pushing for a change in policy.

“We’ve been working on this a long time in a serious way, and I’m glad Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius responded with concrete steps to finally remove this policy from the books,” Kerry said in a statement. “HHS is doing their due diligence, and we plan to stay focused on the endgame – a safe blood supply and an end to this discriminatory ban.”

“This announcement by HHS means we’re moving in the direction of finally ending this antiquated and discriminatory policy,” agreed Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. “Senator Kerry and I will continue to push for a behavior-based screening process both in the name of fairness and a safer blood supply.”


too funny.

Being ignorant at 17, I asked my English teacher (who I was quite close to) if he wanted to join me in giving blood at a blood drive. He said "they don't want my blood- they'd use it only for experiments". Took me over a decade to piece it together.

Gays should be allowed to give blood. And the blood bank should screen for diseases. A straight man or woman has the same chance of having AIDS as a gay person. The weight falls on the blood bank to screen this out.

Gay people should be allowed to give blood.

Originally Posted by jmpet

Being ignorant at 17, I asked my English teacher (who I was quite close to) if he wanted to join me in giving blood at a blood drive. He said "they don't want my blood- they'd use it only for experiments". Took me over a decade to piece it together.

Gays should be allowed to give blood. And the blood bank should screen for diseases. A straight man or woman has the same chance of having AIDS as a gay person. The weight falls on the blood bank to screen this out.

Gay people should be allowed to give blood.

I don't see this as a rights issue. The issue is the integrity of the blood supply. Blood donated goes into the sickest and weakest in our society, and a bad pint is going to kill someone. I don't think the science supports banning all gays, but I think we have to ask what the science actually says rather than how people feel about things.

Does anybody know the reason for the original ban?

Uncle Ferd says dey get dem ticks from havin' dat gay sex out inna woods...

Tick-Borne Parasite Infecting US Blood Supply
9/5/2011 : No tests can detect Babesiosis before blood donation

A tick-borne infection known as Babesiosis, which can cause severe disease and even death, is becoming a growing threat to the U.S. blood supply, government researchers said Monday. There are currently no diagnostic tests approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that can detect the infection before people donate blood. A 31-year study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now suggests the parasitic infection may be increasing. Babesia infections are marked by anemia, fever, chills and fatigue, but they can also cause organ failure and death. The still rare disease is known to occur in seven U.S. states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest in the spring and summer.

But a study led by Dr. Barbara Herwaldt of the CDC, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found cases had occurred year-round and in states where Babesia parasites are not found -- including as far away as Texas and Florida. States in which the parasite occurs naturally are Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Wisconsin. Of the 162 cases of Babesia infection caused by blood transfusions between 1979 and 2009, nearly 80 percent occurred between 2000 and 2009. "Babesia microti has become the most frequently reported transfusion-transmitted parasite in the United States," CDC researchers wrote, far outpacing malaria infections, which accounted for 49 cases of transfusion-associated disease during the same period, including just five cases during 2000-2009. Premature infants appear to be especially vulnerable.

A separate study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics by a team at the University of Nebraska looked at seven cases of transfusion-associated Babesiosis in premature infants. They found blood transfusions from two infected units of blood caused all seven of the cases of Babesiosis. Symptoms of the infections varied widely, but babies with the lowest weights at birth were at greatest risk of serious infection. The authors warned doctors in areas in which Babesiosis occurs to be watchful for cases in premature infants exposed to blood transfusions.

The CDC researchers called for better ways to prevent and detect cases of transfusion-associated Babesiosis. "Our findings underscore the year-round vulnerability of the U.S. blood supply -- especially, but not only -- in and near Babesiosis-endemic areas. "They also highlight the importance of multi-agency collaborative efforts to detect, investigate, and document transfusion cases; to assess the risks for transfusion transmission; and, thereby, to inform the scope of prevention measures." To deter transfusion-linked Babesiosis, the CDC in January said public health departments should report all cases of the infections to the CDC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44402523.../#.TmZGIGEoFsg

This comes up every year, sometimes every six months. WHO is going to reconsider? Or is this JUST a headline to propagandize Americans into thinking again that these pooor homosexuals are discriminated against. NEITHER does the blood collecting agencies want blood from anyone exposed to mad cow disease in Europe, prostitutes, and some others. Homosexuals fall into this category because they have had sex with another man withing the past so many years.

Tainted blood has already gotten into our public supply and thank you homosexual rights people, hemophiliacs and children have contracted this disease.

Is it worth it to you to be able to have a clean blood supply for your kids and yourself if it is needed. Already we have to sign forms holding the hospitals et al harmless if we find ourselves infected. Scientists at the CDC CONTINUE to support the ban on homosexual blood donations.

Originally Posted by MisLed

This comes up every year, sometimes every six months. WHO is going to reconsider? Or is this JUST a headline to propagandize Americans into thinking again that these pooor homosexuals are discriminated against. NEITHER does the blood collecting agencies want blood from anyone exposed to mad cow disease in Europe, prostitutes, and some others. Homosexuals fall into this category because they have had sex with another man withing the past so many years.

Tainted blood has already gotten into our public supply and thank you homosexual rights people, hemophiliacs and children have contracted this disease.

Is it worth it to you to be able to have a clean blood supply for your kids and yourself if it is needed. Already we have to sign forms holding the hospitals et al harmless if we find ourselves infected. Scientists at the CDC CONTINUE to support the ban on homosexual blood donations.

Yeah, we fixed the DANGER of worrying about Mad Cow disease in the USA by the simple expedient of BANNING BEEF PRODUCERS FROM TESTING EVERY COW!

Our industrial food complex corporations so much runs the USDA that they demanded a regulation to prevent detection of Mad Cow disease from some smaller beef producers who wanted to be able to have a HIGHER than minimum safety standard for their food output.

Really the USA should have a term for this - something like "ANTI-Safety Regulations", where the government promulgates rules to interfere with companies responding to customer desires for improved products.

This, BTW, is from the same people who want "LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION in BUSINESS"!

HEY. I just told you the criteria...i don't decide what it is. Government has gotten too big and too stupid. We can track down one lone cow to give it a test to see if it has mad cow but we can't find 20,000,000 illegals and deport them.

In my opinion, allowing homosexuals to give blood is not a good idea. Apparently the rest of the world thinks so too and that's why THEY ban homos from donating. Now i know that doesn't prevent a homosexual from going in and lying which they probably do. But that blood is also tested. Still, it's been breached before and no doubt will happen again. I don't want to ever have to be in a position to need blood especially for my kids and grandkids.

The USDA does far more damage to the American Way of life than most of us even realize. They treat us as the enemy.

Originally Posted by MisLed

Government has gotten too big and too stupid.

Government is not stupid. Nor is it smart. Only things with brains can be smart or stupid and only living things have brains. You have a magical, animistic view of government.

In my opinion, allowing homosexuals to give blood is not a good idea. Apparently the rest of the world thinks so too and that's why THEY ban homos from donating.

False. Appeal to popularity fallacy. Unrealistic assessment of risk. You are brimming over with fallacies and poor thinking.

Now i know that doesn't prevent a homosexual from going in and lying which they probably do.

This is a blatantly bigoted comment.

Still, it's been breached before and no doubt will happen again.

Of course. Mistakes happen. It has nothing to do with a nefarious plot of lying homos to pollute the blood supply. That's just insane.

The USDA does far more damage to the American Way of life than most of us even realize. They treat us as the enemy.

The American Way Of Life does a lot of damage on its own.

Originally Posted by fiddlerdave

This, BTW, is from the same people who want "LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION in BUSINESS"!

What do you expect from people like this?:



Percentage of mortgage-interest-deduction recipients who say they “have not used a government social program” : 60
Of federal student-loan recipients : 53
Of food stamp recipients : 25

Harper's Magazine, September 2011

Not all gays are high-risk. By simply filling out a questionaire, many of them could be classified into a lower risk group than many of the heterosexuals that are allowed to donate blood.

For example, there is no reason that a gay couple, that has only ever had intercourse between themselves, should not be allowed to donate blood.