LGBT Gays and blood donation

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by TheMustafa, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. TheMustafa

    TheMustafa hook 'em

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    Attention OT CLOSET: Gay men are orders of magnitude more likely to be HIV+ (and much more likely to have a whole host of other diseases) as compared to other groups. Its just a statistical truth. Dont blame me, blame all the retards obsessed with meth and barebacking. So no, as a community, we are not the same as heterosexuals in all regards. We also cant pop out kids. Get used to it.

    So, when 50% of new HIV cases are caused by man-on-man sex, of course they are going to prevent people who have sex with men from donating blood as an issue of public health. The first step in ensuring HIV- blood for everyone is to prevent the highest-risk groups from donating, and the only way to do that is to eliminate people based upon risk factors for contracting HIV, and MSM is on the top of that list by a wide margin.

    The next highest single causes is high risk heterosexual sex (sex with prostitutes, iv drug users, etc; 30%), and those people are prevented from donating as well. The third highest group is IV drug users (20%), and they are prevented from donating, too.

    If you're pissed that MSM sex makes it more likely to get HIV, feel free to (1) get pissed that god didnt design the anus to prevent STD transmission, and (2) go become a community organizer and educate people about safe sex. (Did you know that 30% of gay men use "seroselection," ie asking if the guy they are about to bareback has HIV, as their primary method of HIV prevention?)

    if you're going to message me asking my scientific opinion on why gay men should or shouldn't donate blood, dont tell me "i'm arguing the wrong side of the issue, goodbye" when the statistics dont support your position.

    this isnt a human rights or ethical issue, its a public health issue. no one is dying for lack of blood transfusions, and we can supply our needs using a low-risk pool.

    IV drug users have a much lower HIV prevalence rate as compared to MSM. should we let them donate blood, too?
     
  2. TheMustafa

    TheMustafa hook 'em

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    i'd be interested to see what side of the issue most people fall on.
     
  3. TheMustafa

    TheMustafa hook 'em

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    New HIV infections by transmission cause in US males, 2006:

    Male-to-male sexual contact 17,465 (67% of subtotal)
    Injection drug use 3,016
    Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,180
    High-risk heterosexual contact 4,152
    Other 114
    Subtotal 25,928

    Note that new infections in US females was less than 9k, and 7k of those were caused by high-risk heterosexual contact (sex with someone known to be HIV+ or from a group at high risk for HIV).

    So, if you want to exclude high-risk donors from the blood donor pool, what other criteria do you want to use?
     
  4. novo

    novo Pokey Man OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    41,201
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Low Haight
    when there's a lack of donated blood, why would exclude an entire demographic (is that word used properly here?) even if most are not likely to be viable?

    there ARE homosexuals without HIV, ya know..seems kind of dumb to not even give them the opportunity.

    the people who need the blood are the real losers in the situation.
     
  5. TheMustafa

    TheMustafa hook 'em

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    but no one is going without blood :dunno:
     
  6. novo

    novo Pokey Man OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    41,201
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Low Haight
  7. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    There may be people who need blood, but there are homosexuals that lie about sexual contact. With some diseases laying dormant for awhile, its easier to tell us no.

    Thinking of if my family ever needed a transfusion and how easy some of my friends are, I wouldnt want to put my family at risk to allow some others to feel equal.
     
  8. 2500

    2500 Guest

    My BF went to donate plasma, and they asked if he had ever had sex with a man and he said no, lol. They weren't going to allow him. I can only imagine my BF trying to be straight, lol.
     
  9. ManyHamsters

    ManyHamsters There are necessary pursuits... but poetry, beauty

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto

    I love statistics, without them we wouldn't be able to address problems in efficient or effective manners. You're relating a biological inability to produce children within same-sex couples to risky lifestyle choices that heterosexuals can make as well? Faulty and completely unrelated argument to your issue.

    I'm not an expert on blood donation filtering, but would love to learn more... do they, after filtering out the most risky groups, then test all blood they receive for any impurities or diseases?

    Not angry about MSM sex having an increased rate for STI transmission. Who knows, one day our anuses may evolve to provide that protection. :p (1) though i am surprised that you believe in god and (2) I do that currently :).

    I am surprised by the high number of people who still bareback, and even more surprised to hear about seroselection being so dominant. It seems incredibly irresponsible given the information that is available about HIV and other STIs out there. Seems like these people want to know if the person is infected, but aren't taking any steps to actually prevent infection. Perhaps more information does need to be put out there for gay men.

    As far as the human rights or ethical issues go, concerning this issue, I'm neutral. I am a subscriber to the Marxist ideology of the good of the many outweighing the good of the one, when it is not being used to pass off unreasonable regulations or restrictions upon society or individuals. If indeed there is no shortage of blood from heterosexuals who do not perform anal intercourse or other risky forms of sex, or from IV drug users etc, then I personally am ok with not donating my blood.

    However, assuming the answer to my above question about all blood being tested, even blood only coming from the lower risk groups, is yes, then I would like some numbers showing the current possibility of impure blood passing through their testing and screening, and then scaling that up to include the groups mentioned above, and see what effect that will have on the final chance of HIV infected blood finding its way to a blood bank. I think that most people, gay or straight, would not like to see innocent people hurt, especially from an act of goodwill. I think that having these numbers would ease a lot of minds, as right now all evidence seems to be corroborative as opposed to causative. That said, I haven't spent much time upon this issue or researching it, because it isn't a huge priority in Toronto, so perhaps there are numbers, in which case I would love to see them for myself.

    In the name of equality however, one change to their policy that I would like to see made, would be to make the definition of risky sex gender neutral - rephrase the terminology about anal intercourse, as not only gay men participate in it. These categories you mention above seem incredibly discriminatory and aren't inclusive of all conditions that could lead to impure blood. In fact, it seems incredibly flawed for a scientific study to make categories so haphazardly and non-uniformly, which leads to a lot of bias and flaws. Instead of MSM sex being a category, how about instead defining categories for bareback sex, IV usage, etc, for all categories for routes for infection. You don't see a category for Straight or Homeless instead of IV usage, as that avoids and doesn't capture the risky factor completely.

    Thanks for bringing up this topic TheMustafa, it has challenged me, and frankly given me a great potential topic to focus upon for a thesis.
     
  10. TheMustafa

    TheMustafa hook 'em

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    The US blood banks use a 3 tiered safety system:

    (1) exclude the highest-risk potential donors while still maintaining adequate supply;
    (2) test all donations for HIV, Heb B and C, HTLV, West Nile, Chagas, and Syphilis.
    (3) ensure that regional and local blood banks meet strict QC guidelines.

    HIV testing can have a 3-4 week window, so a donation might test negative for HIV and still be infective. Thats why limiting groups with high HIV prevalence is so important. In addition, there are other diseases gay men are more prone to carry, such as HHV-8 (a herpes virus), which causes Kaposi's sarcoma. In the general population, it has a 1-3% prevalence, while among HIV- gay men it has a 15-20% prevalence and among HIV+ gay men it has a 30-50% prevalence, and no one knows how it is spread. So, its not just HIV.

    Different people try to quantify the effects of allowing MSM donation by coming up with something like "X number of people will be infected with HIV over Y years if MSM donation is allowed," but coming up with those kinds of statistics is problematic. There are a lot of variables to consider. What everyone agrees on, however, is that MSM blood donation will increase the risk of HIV transmission through blood donation, and that allowing MSM to donate will have a negligible effect on blood supply (there arent that many of us).

    As far as seroselection goes, the numbers of gay men who use seroselection primarily have more than doubled since 2001, and almost 30% of new HIV cases in gay men are in men who've assumed they are having unprotected sex with HIV- partners. Its a disaster, really.

    Lastly, as far as changing the wording to "people who partake in insertive anal intercourse," this is also problematic. Women who have anal sex with heterosexual men arent at as much of a risk, because heterosexual men have a relatively low incidence of HIV in the US. Its really just men who have sex with men, and we can get into a discussion of bottom/top/vers, but at the end of the day the numbers of potential donors are so small that its irrelevant. There arent that many "top-only" gay guys running around.
     
  11. Well by allowing gays to donate blood we could actually be HURTING the blood supply.

    They do not test every single donation separately IIRC. They put ones of the same blood type all into a batch and test THAT for the diseases. So if one person's blood in their is HIV+, the whole batch is HIV+ and must be thrown out. That's just what I've heard and don't have a link or resource to back it up.

    Yeah I've had sex with a guy, one guy, and I don't have HIV, obviously...I still "can't" donate blood though but I'm sure if I walked over to one of those donation trucks I could sit my ass down and give blood...I'm not some :greddy: who makes it 10000% obvious. They should just have a test where you "Silly" into a microphone and the computer tests it for the gay.
     
  12. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    While we are still on the subject, I would be happy to donate, even if they just throw it into the medical waste bin, just so I could have the light headed euphoric feeling I get after getting any kind of needle put into me.

    Including piercing needles.
     
  13. ManyHamsters

    ManyHamsters There are necessary pursuits... but poetry, beauty

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto

    thanks, this is good info to know. I wouldn't want to donate if it could actually hurt people, and it really does help to have some solid numbers behind it: physical safety definitely gets priority over not offending people :hsd:
     
  14. Naturally Baked

    Naturally Baked Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit, Murder Mitten
    yea i have a fear of needles so I dont care either way
     
  15. blaq19

    blaq19 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bmore - Manhattan
    It's so weird I love getting tattooed but needles scare the shit outta me. :noes:
     
  16. Naturally Baked

    Naturally Baked Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit, Murder Mitten
    Wow what is weird is I had a dream last night that I got a tattoo...I remember it vividly and my roommate said I was moaning lol
     
  17. blaq19

    blaq19 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bmore - Manhattan
    :rofl: I have had a dream about my piercer before, that was wild!
     
  18. TheMustafa

    TheMustafa hook 'em

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, Tx
    i think people take these regs to be personal in nature, whereas in public health its not about individual risk, but risks for entire populations of people.

    as long as you are safe about sex, get tested regularly, etc, i doubt you'd unwittingly hurt anyone with a blood donation, and these regulations arent saying that being gay = dirty. the fact of the matter is that people who make public health policy cant look at individual people on a case-by-case basis; its too labor intensive and too prone to mistakes. instead, they pretty much have to look at large populations of people and make policy using that.

    (i'm drunk, i hope that makes sense)
     
  19. I'd yell/swear in my dreams last year and my roommate would be cracking up he said. :rofl: I'd be like a total crazy person yelling at people, dropping every swear word in the book and stuff. :rofl:
     
  20. geniks

    geniks king of the hill

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte NC
    I don't like giving blood anyways. LOL!
     
  21. Kitler

    Kitler Fabulously Gay

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, Wa.
    God I hate getting blood drawn, so this really isn't an issue... but fuck 60% of new hiv cases are in our sector... Damn this kinda changes my perspective. Thank god I have only had sex with one person :noes:
     
  22. renegadeblack

    renegadeblack New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I didn't know that if I answered the question yes that I'd be told I couldn't donate. I mean, they asked me if I was or had sex with an IV drug user. The answer is no. Now, it's on record that I fucked a dude, so I can't even lie in the future. I know I don't have any STDs, I've been tested. It upsets me greatly.
     
  23. DouggieJ

    DouggieJ OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, NY USA
    I'd never give blood to those vampires anyway.

    This just lets me feel not guilty about it. :)
     
  24. Naturally Baked

    Naturally Baked Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit, Murder Mitten

Share This Page