Mexico Reportedly Lifts Blood Ban on ...

Mexico Reportedly Lifts Blood Ban on Gay Donors

There are 14 comments on the www.southfloridagaynews.com story from Dec 26, 2012, titled Mexico Reportedly Lifts Blood Ban on Gay Donors. In it, www.southfloridagaynews.com reports that:

Reports assert Mexico has become the first country in the Eastern Hemisphere to allow gays to donate blood.

As first reported in English by Blabbeando blog, a new health regulation first approved in August would be going into effect this week, thus ending a 20-year ban on gay blood donations.

The story was originally reported last week by Mexican media outlet Animal Politico. According to its story, Mexico will now allow LGBTs to donate blood without any restrictions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.southfloridagaynews.com.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1 Dec 26, 2012
The blood ban on gays and lesbians ignores science and reason.

There is no reason to ban donations based on sexual orientation.

Mandating universal testing will finally show everyone HIV doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I once volunteered at a straight HIV support organization in North Miami(Positive Connections) that sponsored a yearly cruise for HIV+ heterosexuals!
Tony

San Antonio, TX

#2 Dec 26, 2012
Never get a blood transfusion in Mexico! Most likely get AIDS.

Since: Feb 09

Southern California

#3 Dec 26, 2012
Tony wrote:
Never get a blood transfusion in Mexico! Most likely get AIDS.
Never get educated in the U.S. This is the result.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6 Dec 26, 2012
Righteous-Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>OMG, what happened to your ears?
Why are you afraid of mandatory universal HIV testing of all people?

Afraid people will learn what a tramp you really are?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#7 Dec 26, 2012
Tony wrote:
Never get a blood transfusion in Mexico! Most likely get AIDS.
1. Remove Pubic Lice and Eggs

Use an over-the-counter lotion or anti-lice shampoo. Follow instructions on the label.

The shampoo will kill the lice, but eggs – nits – may remain on hair shafts. After treatment, remove nits with fingernails, tweezers, or a fine-toothed comb. A mirror, magnifying glass, and a bright light may help.


2. Stop the Spread

Check other family members for crabs. Anyone who sleeps in the same bed as the person should be treated, even if no pubic lice are found.

Wash clothes, bedding, or towels used by the person in the two days before treatment. Use hot water.

Dry-clean or store Items that can't be washed in a plastic bag for 2 weeks.


3. Follow Up

Treatment may need to be repeated 9 to 10 days later.

Avoid sexual contact until the person and sexual partners have been treated and re-evaluated.


4. See a Health Care Provider

To be checked for other sexually transmitted diseases.

If a second round of over-the-counter treatment isn't effective.

If the person develops an infection from scratching the affected area.

If fingers or combs aren't enough to remove lice or nits in eyebrows and eyelashes. A health care provider can prescribe ophthalmic grade petroleum jelly.

Hope this helps you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8 Dec 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you afraid of mandatory universal HIV testing of all people?
Afraid people will learn what a tramp you really are?
It's because he probably knows he has AIDs but doesn't want anyone else to know. Straight people are like cattle these days, and self hating closet homosexuals are worse.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Dec 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's because he probably knows he has AIDs but doesn't want anyone else to know. Straight people are like cattle these days, and self hating closet homosexuals are worse.
Well I hope he/she doesn't. As an HIV+ person myself I can assure you it's nothing to joke about.

I'm a strong supporter of mandatory universal screening for HIV and several other diseases, sexually transmitted and otherwise.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10 Dec 27, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's because he probably knows he has AIDs but doesn't want anyone else to know. Straight people are like cattle these days, and self hating closet homosexuals are worse.
Laws that criminalize HIV keep some from being tested. If you don't know, you can't knowingly pass it to someone else and then be locked up. Such laws reward ignorance, and work against prevention.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11 Dec 27, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws that criminalize HIV keep some from being tested. If you don't know, you can't knowingly pass it to someone else and then be locked up. Such laws reward ignorance, and work against prevention.
I do agree with that, but at the same time there are people who do willingly cause infections in others. It would be very challenging to find the perfect balance between the two.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#12 Dec 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Well I hope he/she doesn't. As an HIV+ person myself I can assure you it's nothing to joke about.
I'm a strong supporter of mandatory universal screening for HIV and several other diseases, sexually transmitted and otherwise.
Personally, I don't care if he does or not. I was just pointing pointing out the fact that based on odds and statistics, he is more likely to actually have it, with wording that was intended to counter his trollishness.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13 Dec 28, 2012
Statistics applied to an entire population cannot be applied to every person in that population. The population at risk is those who have had the risk of contracting the disease within the past 6 months to a year. That includes heterosexual people as well as gay and bi people. There is no need to exclude those who have no risk and have been tested.

The current US policy is not based on good science but rather on fear and prejudice. Risk screening should be used to separate out anyone who has engaged in high risk behavior rather than focusing on sexual orientation. While the current policy made sense before reliable testing was developed, now that we have such testing the current policy makes no sense.

Anyone can carry HIV and pass it on. But having the virus is required for passing it on. People who are not infected cannot pass the virus, no matter what they do. There is no reason to exclude people who are not infected and have not had the opportunity to become infected in 6mo. to a year. While the virus can go undetected for a month or more, that is why the new proposed policy would require no risk of exposure within a year, which is plenty of time to develop the antibodies which would show up in the repeated testing.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Dec 28, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I do agree with that, but at the same time there are people who do willingly cause infections in others. It would be very challenging to find the perfect balance between the two.
I think any law that creates the dangers the current law does is a bad law. Routine screening of ALL blood should be mandatory. But criminalizing transmission ignores the assumed risk anyone places on themselves if they engage in risky behavior (sharing needles, unprotected sex). Criminalizing transmission is a bad law, just as the blood ban is.

These bans also create a shortage in the blood supply. As one who is HIV+, I'm perfectly happy being honest about it. My blood could be used for someone who is HIV+ and on the same drug regimen I am on. That would make one pint of uninfected blood available for someone else.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15 Dec 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I think any law that creates the dangers the current law does is a bad law. Routine screening of ALL blood should be mandatory. But criminalizing transmission ignores the assumed risk anyone places on themselves if they engage in risky behavior (sharing needles, unprotected sex). Criminalizing transmission is a bad law, just as the blood ban is.
These bans also create a shortage in the blood supply. As one who is HIV+, I'm perfectly happy being honest about it. My blood could be used for someone who is HIV+ and on the same drug regimen I am on. That would make one pint of uninfected blood available for someone else.
Your points and reasoning for maintaining an HIV+ supply are sound, and logical, I cannot argue those. As I said, the problem is that some people do transmit it purposefully, and that is worse than outright murder, so there needs to be a balance somewhere.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#16 Dec 28, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your points and reasoning for maintaining an HIV+ supply are sound, and logical, I cannot argue those. As I said, the problem is that some people do transmit it purposefully, and that is worse than outright murder, so there needs to be a balance somewhere.
And again, I point out that transmission is only possible if the uninfected person willfully engages in risky behavior.

The balance is simple. Encourage personal responsibility. Laws that criminalize transmission do not do that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 min Ronald 9,951
Are Americans Fed Up With LGBT? 8 min Rainbow Kid 6
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 14 min Prisoner of my Mo... 2,406
News Former Missouri college wrestler sentenced for ... 19 min Prisoner of my Mo... 7
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 1 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 41
News Lawyer: Let same-sex marriage start in Mississippi (Dec '14) 2 hr Bob 6
News Gay couple denied baby through surrogate challe... 2 hr Ame Nunley 32
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Freedomofexpression 56,087
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 3 hr EdmondWA 24
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 5 hr Harris 65
More from around the web