Gay Blood Donor's Lifetime Ban Upheld

[Colossus_500]

I know this might sound ignorant, but....can't gay females contract HIV as well? 

WASHINGTON - Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said yesterday, leaving in place a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.

The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its longstanding policy on its Web site yesterday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

Critics of the policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays.

The Associated Press

[Colossus_500]

Commentary from Family Research Council...


Leaving in place a policy over three decades old, the FDA announced yesterday that it would uphold its rule that homosexual men cannot donate blood. For years, liberal groups have complained that it's "discriminatory" to forbid homosexuals from donating blood. Critics say the policy, implemented in 1983, is outdated because improved testing can detect virtually all HIV-infected blood. The key word here is "virtually." This is about safety--not prejudice. According to the FDA, no test is 100% accurate. One of the many dangers in testing blood is that some strains of the HIV virus remain undetected for several years in a person's body. Back in September 2000, organizations petitioned the FDA to lift the restrictions, arguing that the policy was "archaic." Yet medical advisers--both then and now--voted to keep the ban in place because there wasn't sufficient evidence that it was safe to make the change. The exclusion is based on the prevalence of disease, not on how the FDA feels about a particular group of people. The same can be said of a debate in California, where a homosexual couple sued for the right to be listed as "prospective parents" on an adoption website. As the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the company, said, "The managers of the adoption profiles believe that it's in the best interests of children to be placed with a married mom and dad." The policy was because of the scientific reality that children fare better physically and emotionally in homes with married, heterosexual parents. Unfortunately, the court ruled on the side of political correctness and ordered the company to "treat everyone equally." As a result, ParentProfiles.com is pulling out of California altogether. In both instances, the FDA and the adoption agency were faulted for refusing to compromise Americans' health to score political points.

[ieffinhatecardio]

This is about safety--not prejudice.

Bwahahhhhaaaaaaaaaahhhaa aaaaaaaa

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee ee, it is.

Here is the Family Research Council's Mission Statement, taken from their website.

"The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society."

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC

[Dos Equis]

I know this might sound ignorant, but....can't gay females contract HIV as well? 

I guess so?   

They ought to ban IV drug users.

[Hedgehog]

The Swedish Gay Right Organisation actually supports a Gay ban for blood donations.

They acknowledge that homos are a higher risk group. I think they're being smart about it.

-Hedge

[Colossus_500]

I guess so?   

They ought to ban IV drug users.

Agreed.  But how do you enforce something like that?  How do you enforce a homosexual from donating blood?  Someone could look totally normal, but be a recreational drug user. 

[Colossus_500]

The Swedish Gay Right Organisation actually supports a Gay ban for blood donations.

They acknowledge that homos are a higher risk group. I think they're being smart about it.

-Hedge

Makes sense to me.  Like  you said, it's just playing it safe and smart.

[Dos Equis]

Agreed.  But how do you enforce something like that?  How do you enforce a homosexual from donating blood?  Someone could look totally normal, but be a recreational drug user. 

I don't think you can completely enforce a ban like that, because it relies on the donor telling the truth.  

[OzmO]

I donno,  it seems like a good move because of the danger of spreading aids.  I don;t think this is purely about a anti-homo agenda

[Colossus_500]

I don't think you can completely enforce a ban like that, because it relies on the donor telling the truth.  

Yep.  Scary.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I donno,  it seems like a good move because of the danger of spreading aids.  I don;t think this is purely about a anti-homo agenda

Purely anti-homo is probably correct but to claim it played no role is preposterous especially coming from that Christian Family group.

Although this policy seems a bit short sighted especially given the shortage of donated blood. I would think a stringent testing program on donated blood would be more sound than a wholesale ban on such a vital need.

According to what I read if someone had one homosexual encounter of any type at any time in their life then they are not eligible to donate. That's banning a lot of people from giving something that is in short supply.

[OzmO]

Purely anti-homo is probably correct but to claim it played no role is preposterous especially coming from that Christian Family group.

Although this policy seems a bit short sighted especially given the shortage of donated blood. I would think a stringent testing program on donated blood would be more sound than a wholesale ban on such a vital need.

According to what I read if someone had one homosexual encounter of any type at any time in their life then they are not eligible to donate. That's banning a lot of people from giving something that is in short supply.

What does testing involve and could it be cost effective and feasible to test blood as it comes in?

It's a tough call here because it seems to make sense if not for the wrong reasons.

[Tre]

In order to mitigate the risk of transmission, ALL potential blood donors should be required to undergo full background checks by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security (god, I just love that term! lol), and their local sheriff's departments. 

 

[Colossus_500]

Purely anti-homo is probably correct but to claim it played no role is preposterous especially coming from that Christian Family group.

Although this policy seems a bit short sighted especially given the shortage of donated blood. I would think a stringent testing program on donated blood would be more sound than a wholesale ban on such a vital need.

According to what I read if someone had one homosexual encounter of any type at any time in their life then they are not eligible to donate. That's banning a lot of people from giving something that is in short supply.

Um... FRC doesn't have any authority to uphold a ban.  The FDA is the one who upheld the ruling, and rightly so I believe.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Um... FRC doesn't have any authority to uphold a ban.  The FDA is the one who upheld the ruling, and rightly so I believe.

Um, I wasn't referring to the FDA's stance on the ban. I was referring to the FRC's stance. That's why I quoted from their press release and that's why I posted their mission statement.

What does testing involve and could it be cost effective and feasible to test blood as it comes in?

It's a tough call here because it seems to make sense if not for the wrong reasons.

That's an excellent question and perhaps certain groups have been hurt financially from allowing infected blood to be donated. The cost of testing just might be prohibitive but my point is still the same. They're banning an awful lot of people from donating a highly needed resource.

Of all the men that have had any kind of homosexual experience in their life what do you think the percentage is of those people carrying the HIV virus?

[Colossus_500]

Um, I wasn't referring to the FDA's stance on the ban. I was referring to the FRC's stance. That's why I quoted from their press release and that's why I posted their mission statement.

That's an excellent question and perhaps certain groups have been hurt financially from allowing infected blood to be donated. The cost of testing just might be prohibitive but my point is still the same. They're are banning an awful lot of people from donating a highly needed resource.

Of all the men that have had any kind of homosexual experience in their life what do you think the percentage is of those people carrying the HIV virus?

My bad.

[BayGBM]

This is a hoot and not unlike earlier bans on gays in the military/don’t ask don’t tell.  When there is a shortage of troops then suddenly all the arguments about the need for a ban become less and less important.

The same would be true for the ban on blood donations.  If there were a real need for donated blood they would lift this ban too and focus on what they should focus on: appropriate screening so that blood donated from everyone—no matter their profile--is safe and untainted.

I'm sure I speak for all gay dudes when I say, I’m quite happy keeping my untainted blood to myself… just don’t come knocking later when an acute shortage hits and you realize your folly. 

[militarymuscle69]

Purely anti-homo is probably correct but to claim it played no role is preposterous especially coming from that Christian Family group.

Although this policy seems a bit short sighted especially given the shortage of donated blood. I would think a stringent testing program on donated blood would be more sound than a wholesale ban on such a vital need.

According to what I read if someone had one homosexual encounter of any type at any time in their life then they are not eligible to donate. That's banning a lot of people from giving something that is in short supply.

When was the last time you gave blood? There are a hundred things that keep you from giving. We have 24 guys in this shop and the last blood drive we held (we like stealing blood from our students) 27 of them couldn't give blood because of something to do with being stationed in Europe. The Red Cross is just trying to be safe. This isn't a gay issue

[Tre]

Of all the men that have had any kind of homosexual experience in their life what do you think the percentage is of those people carrying the HIV virus?

Whoops!!!

[Tre]

they should focus on: appropriate screening so that blood donated from everyone—no matter their profile--is safe and untainted.

100% correct.

Profiling doesn't achieve a darn thing. 

[BayGBM]

100% correct.

Profiling doesn't achieve a darn thing. 

Exactly.  Just think, Ted Haggard would have passed the profile test.  Before he was busted, he certainly would not have admitted to being gay or having man to man sex.

Sadly, there are a lot of Ted Haggards out there. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

When was the last time you gave blood? There are a hundred things that keep you from giving. We have 24 guys in this shop and the last blood drive we held (we like stealing blood from our students) 27 of them couldn't give blood because of something to do with being stationed in Europe. The Red Cross is just trying to be safe. This isn't a gay issue

Not for about 6 years. This is an FDA ban not a Red Cross ban, the Red Cross criticized the ban. LOL

The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its longstanding policy on its Web site yesterday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

What is it you used to say about skim readers you pole smoking pillow biter? 

Like the Red Cross I don't agree with the ban, I think stringent testing would be a better policy than a wholesale ban on a group of people.

Whoops!!!

Help me out Tre, I don't get it.

[Tre]

Help me out Tre, I don't get it.

I was making a little joke about the vast number of guys who've had a homosexual 'experience', yet would *never* admit it.   

Bay knows the score. heh heh

[militarymuscle69]

Not for about 6 years. This is an FDA ban not a Red Cross ban, the Red Cross criticized the ban. LOL

The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its longstanding policy on its Web site yesterday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as "medically and scientifically unwarranted."

What is it you used to say about skim readers you pole smoking pillow biter? 

Like the Red Cross I don't agree with the ban, I think stringent testing would be a better policy than a wholesale ban on a group of people.

Help me out Tre, I don't get it.

my bad queer