Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A woman who watched her husband die of AIDS after receiving a tainted donation and who now has the disease herself is torn over gay rights versus blood supply safety.
Once again, homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle especially for MSMs. The CDC has stated that MSM are 44 times more likely than heterosexuals to acquire HIV. The issue of whether or not they should be allowed to donate blood is absurd when you look at these findings!
You are assuming all gay men engage in high-risk sexual activity, and no heterosexuals do. That's the reason this needs to be removed. An individual who engages in high-risk sexual activity should be prevented from donating blood, regardless of their sexual orientation. The latest statistics indicate over 40% of heterosexuals have anal sex, which puts them in the high-risk category.
You are assuming all gay men engage in high-risk sexual activity, and no heterosexuals do. That's the reason this needs to be removed. An individual who engages in high-risk sexual activity should be prevented from donating blood, regardless of their sexual orientation. The latest statistics indicate over 40% of heterosexuals have anal sex, which puts them in the high-risk category.
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
Obviously there is a blood supply problem testing problem that needs to be immediately addressed. With times being hard it is likely a number of high risk individuals are lying if "selling" their blood/plasma for income.
If the testing measures are unreliable then consumer/patients should be aware and bank their own blood or request relatives do the same prior to medical procedures. It is a practice that is not encouraged because of the time/paperwork involved but it is a way to guarantee a patient knows where the blood product he/she may receive came from.
As I understand it advances with synthetic blood products have made tremendous headway. This may be an option for hospitals and their patients in ER's who arrive unable to physically consent to the receipt of blood products. Anything that can be done to cut down the unintended transmittion rate of disease through the blood supply is prudent medicine, IMO.
Are you aware that since 1985, there has been a test for the presence of HIV virus in donated blood, and that contaminated blood is discarded? That's been 25 years!
Donor directed blood or that donated by friend and relatives is no longer encouraged as it once was. The main reason being people who engaged in high-risk activity were often not open about that aspect of their lives with their friends and family. You know the old saying "you never really know what others are doing in the bedroom". Anonymous tested blood was safer.
A woman who watched her husband die of AIDS after receiving a tainted donation and who now has the disease herself is torn over gay rights versus blood supply safety.
Once again, homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle especially for MSMs. The CDC has stated that MSM are 44 times more likely than heterosexuals to acquire HIV. The issue of whether or not they should be allowed to donate blood is absurd when you look at these findings!
How do they know the blood of an infected gay man tainted the blood supply?
I dont see anything in the article that claims that.
How do they know it wasnt a woman who'd had sex with an infected male junkie, for instance?
Donor directed blood or that donated by friend and relatives is no longer encouraged as it once was. The main reason being people who engaged in high-risk activity were often not open about that aspect of their lives with their friends and family. You know the old saying "you never really know what others are doing in the bedroom". Anonymous tested blood was safer.
Was being the key word.
Obviously those participating in high risk activity are no longer being truthful anonymous donors either. If there is a problem in the blood supply then there is likely a similar problem with other biological products of donor origin as well.
If I don't donate blood by about this time of Spring I become ineligible due to my exposure to ticks. I'm honest about this at the time of donation and as a long-time blood donor I know what is and is not acceptable. The pre-donation questionaire and interviews are very clear. Others should be similarly responsible when donating blood/plasma/marrow and other biological products.
Patients must always be aware of the risk of the unknown.
I remember when we were encouraged as families to have x-pints of blood drawn and have our local hospitals keep it for us. Seems like a good idea -- accidents, transfusions, you never know.
Are you aware that since 1985, there has been a test for the presence of HIV virus in donated blood, and that contaminated blood is discarded? That's been 25 years!
Some of us are aware of this and some will just ignore it in order to rant on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
