US to reconsider Gay Blood Donations

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by MisLed, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/heal...other-look-at-gay-blood-donation-ban-20110726

    :gun:

    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.
     
  2. jmpet

    jmpet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Caeia Iulia Regilia

    Caeia Iulia Regilia New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  4. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,073
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uncle Ferd says dey get dem ticks from havin' dat gay sex out inna woods...
    :omg:
    Tick-Borne Parasite Infecting US Blood Supply
    9/5/2011 : No tests can detect Babesiosis before blood donation
     
    B.Larset and (deleted member) like this.
  5. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  6. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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"! :lol:
     
    B.Larset and (deleted member) like this.
  7. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
    B.Larset and (deleted member) like this.
  8. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    False. Appeal to popularity fallacy. Unrealistic assessment of risk. You are brimming over with fallacies and poor thinking.
    This is a blatantly bigoted comment.
    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 American Way Of Life does a lot of damage on its own.
     
  9. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you expect from people like this?:

    [​IMG]

    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
     
  10. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Guest2

    Guest2 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This is no time for political correctness. If the risk for AIDs or HIV or whatever is higher in the gay community, then of course there should be more caution when considering blood donations from the gay community.
     

Share This Page