Healthy Gay Men Must Be Allowed to Do...

Healthy Gay Men Must Be Allowed to Donate Blood, Says GMHC

There are 101 comments on the EDGE story from Mar 8, 2013, titled Healthy Gay Men Must Be Allowed to Donate Blood, Says GMHC. In it, EDGE reports that:

Tired of the bureaucratic foot-dragging, the Gay Men's Health Crisis has teamed up with the Sarah Lawrence College Student Life Committee and the Student Senate to create a We The People online petition to demand that the President Barack Obama force the Food and Drug Administration to reform their policy preventing gay men from donating blood.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#50 Mar 10, 2013
Blood bank lab tech wrote:
<quoted text>
I do the testing myself. And yes, all donated blood IS screened for HIV, but NOT using the latest very expensive test that can indicate very RECENT exposure.
<quoted text>
The question reads: "Male donors: Since 1977, have had sexual contact with another male, even once?"
That is not a question about the potential donor's sexual orientation, but about his BEHAVIOR since 1977. A "yes" answer, even in cases of rape, results in permanent deferral from donating blood.
<quoted text>
Yes there is. HIV can go undetected for a VERY long time. And infection rates remain highest by FAR among males who have engaged in sexual relations with other males. Even if they identify as "straight."
<quoted text>
First, your statement is simply false. And second, REPEATED testing is not ordinarily done on each sample. If it shows up in a sample, and that donor has donated blood in the past, EVERY SINGLE recipient of that donor's previous blood donations (and it could be up to three persons per donation) has to be notified and tested. The cost of doing that is astronomical.
Blood banks are non-profits. Why bankrupt a lifesaving non-profit organization just to avoid hurting the feelings of high-risk donors?
This entire debate is patently STUPID, since the purpose of donating blood is to help the community rather than to assert some imagined societal approval of high risk behavior. If a way can be found to INEXPENSIVELY test for HIV antibodies that show up much earlier following exposure, MAYBE a one-year provision could make sense. But to insist that non-profits spend millions on super-expensive testing rather than simply ask donors about high-risk sexual behavior is endanger every community's ability to maintain a ready blood supply.
You're effectively asking the rest of us to forgo a ready blood supply so that homosexuals won't be offended. Our society is already sacrificing too much to avoid offending Muslims, women, blacks, native Americans, and every other "special class" that demands it.
There is no such thing as the "right" to not be offended. And there is no such thing as a "right" to donate blood, and to jeopardize the blood supply with a lethal plague just to avoid offending some "special" class of people.
Well; DUH!
.
The best way to stop 'society' from having to 'sacrifice' is to stop 'society' from discriminating against special classes of people
.
Perhaps you can put yourself into the mind of a veterinarian who doesn't discriminate against a dog that doesn't look like HIS dog
.
Then learn to project your newfound skill to humans
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#51 Mar 10, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did my post disappear?
Your IP address sends out a homophobe alarm
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#52 Mar 10, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
The biggest danger in receiving blood from a homosexual is that it might turn you gay.
It could cure homophobia
.
Go for it
safety

Albuquerque, NM

#53 Mar 10, 2013
The best case for banking a few units of your own blood away for a scheduled surgery. Granted emergency surgeries doesn't allow the time for it, but if you have a week before a known surgery you can get a few units banked away. I did it for an aortic graft and received my blood back before I was discharged.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#55 Mar 10, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did my post disappear?
I don't run Topix, Cletus. If I do report a poster, I always 'reply' with a "reported" notation. If I am going to narc on someone, I let them know who tattled about their nasty trash.

Besides, which POSSIBLY of your silly posts was so VITALLY important that its being removed would upset you? 99 out of 100 of your posts are mindless repetitive taunts.

Maybe someone ELSE was annoyed at your rantings besides me, did you ever think of that? oh, yes, that word, "think". Sorry won't make THAT error again.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#56 Mar 10, 2013
Fuzzy N Blurry wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't get it Mr. Curt! If every man or lady is fully tested before giving blood what's the big deal? Or am I simply missing something here? I don't think so though! LOL
I don't know. I am no physician. I don't know how it works or how they test clients. I only know that blood is checked after donations. What goes on before that is up to others.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#57 Mar 10, 2013
Blood bank lab tech wrote:
<quoted text>
I do the testing myself. And yes, all donated blood IS screened for HIV, but NOT using the latest very expensive test that can indicate very RECENT exposure.
<quoted text>
The question reads: "Male donors: Since 1977, have had sexual contact with another male, even once?"
That is not a question about the potential donor's sexual orientation, but about his BEHAVIOR since 1977. A "yes" answer, even in cases of rape, results in permanent deferral from donating blood.
<quoted text>
Yes there is. HIV can go undetected for a VERY long time. And infection rates remain highest by FAR among males who have engaged in sexual relations with other males. Even if they identify as "straight."
<quoted text>
First, your statement is simply false. And second, REPEATED testing is not ordinarily done on each sample. If it shows up in a sample, and that donor has donated blood in the past, EVERY SINGLE recipient of that donor's previous blood donations (and it could be up to three persons per donation) has to be notified and tested. The cost of doing that is astronomical.
Blood banks are non-profits. Why bankrupt a lifesaving non-profit organization just to avoid hurting the feelings of high-risk donors?
This entire debate is patently STUPID, since the purpose of donating blood is to help the community rather than to assert some imagined societal approval of high risk behavior. If a way can be found to INEXPENSIVELY test for HIV antibodies that show up much earlier following exposure, MAYBE a one-year provision could make sense. But to insist that non-profits spend millions on super-expensive testing rather than simply ask donors about high-risk sexual behavior is endanger every community's ability to maintain a ready blood supply.
You're effectively asking the rest of us to forgo a ready blood supply so that homosexuals won't be offended. Our society is already sacrificing too much to avoid offending Muslims, women, blacks, native Americans, and every other "special class" that demands it.
There is no such thing as the "right" to not be offended. And there is no such thing as a "right" to donate blood, and to jeopardize the blood supply with a lethal plague just to avoid offending some "special" class of people.
You still provide no justification for maintaining the MSM since '77 restriction.

The new 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 testing. Many who are responsible enough to donate blood also are responsible enough to already know their status. Perhaps an additional requirement of a negative HIV test within that year of no risk would also be a reasonable requirement.

We are close to agreement that behavior is the issue, not sexual orientation, yet you still want to go back as far as '77 and include even low or no risk behavior. This makes no scientific sense. It relies on prejudice alone, of which you appear to also support.

The population at risk is those who have had the risk of contracting the disease within the past year. That includes men who have had sex with women as well as men and women who have had sex with men. There is no need to exclude those who have no risk within the past year and have been tested before donation.

Risk screening should be used to separate out anyone who has engaged in risk behavior within a reasonable time period, rather than focusing on the gender of the partner.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#59 Mar 10, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you so mean to me?
Be nice and polite and I will return it to you.

I have made friends with some true conservatives on here because they were polite and respectful. I don't expect every one to march lock step or agree with every word of mine. HOW boring of a world would that be?

Just try being POLITE and I will chitty chat with you all day long, and politely. Be your usual a-holiness and I will respond the same.
UP IN SMOKE

Winnipeg, Canada

#60 Mar 10, 2013
Olin wrote:
Not allowing queers to donate blood is only common sense.
If I ever need a blood transfusion I would like to feel safe knowing I'm not receiving any homosexual AIDS infected blood.
Does your man wife know you feel this way?
UP IN SMOKE

Winnipeg, Canada

#61 Mar 10, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did my post disappear?
The moderator removes them for being inappropriate buttcrack.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#63 Mar 11, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You still provide no justification for maintaining the MSM since '77 restriction.
The new 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 testing. Many who are responsible enough to donate blood also are responsible enough to already know their status. Perhaps an additional requirement of a negative HIV test within that year of no risk would also be a reasonable requirement.
We are close to agreement that behavior is the issue, not sexual orientation, yet you still want to go back as far as '77 and include even low or no risk behavior. This makes no scientific sense. It relies on prejudice alone, of which you appear to also support.
The population at risk is those who have had the risk of contracting the disease within the past year. That includes men who have had sex with women as well as men and women who have had sex with men. There is no need to exclude those who have no risk within the past year and have been tested before donation.
Risk screening should be used to separate out anyone who has engaged in risk behavior within a reasonable time period, rather than focusing on the gender of the partner.
I could almost be persuaded to go along with this policy, because I really doubt there will be very many gay men who have had no risk of exposure within the last year.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#64 Mar 11, 2013
My spouse and I have been together since 1973, and we are monogamous. Neither of us is positive. I used to give blood on a regular basis. When they decided that gays should not give, I willingly stopped. If they open it up to gays again, I will not resume. I will give blood only to those who know I am gay, and support me. The rest of humanity can bleed to death as far as I am concerned. The hospital contacts me quarterly to donate, and I politely refuse, and will continue to do do.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#65 Mar 11, 2013
Chance wrote:
I could almost be persuaded to go along with this policy, because I really doubt there will be very many gay men who have had no risk of exposure within the last year.
Buttercup, you believe what you want, but the vast majority of gay men don't engage in high risk sexual behavior. We know better.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#66 Mar 11, 2013
RalphB wrote:
My spouse and I have been together since 1973, and we are monogamous. Neither of us is positive. I used to give blood on a regular basis. When they decided that gays should not give, I willingly stopped. If they open it up to gays again, I will not resume. I will give blood only to those who know I am gay, and support me. The rest of humanity can bleed to death as far as I am concerned. The hospital contacts me quarterly to donate, and I politely refuse, and will continue to do do.
Do you tell them why you refuse?

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#67 Mar 11, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
I could almost be persuaded to go along with this policy, because I really doubt there will be very many gay men who have had no risk of exposure within the last year.
I suppose you have taken numerous surveys and followed behavior patterns and trends, set up highly scientifically, or do you use your usual relying on old stereotypes and age old prejudices?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#68 Mar 11, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you tell them why you refuse?
Yep, when they ask. They do sometimes, but not all the time. And this is the hospital I use when needed, and my doctor is on staff there. It is a Catholic hospital. They have my medical Power of Attorney and my Medical Directive, and each has my spouse as the responsible person. When I was admitted one time they asked me if that person was a "friend" or a "partner". I told them "partner". The lady didn't flinch, and neither did my doctor.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#69 Mar 11, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, when they ask. They do sometimes, but not all the time. And this is the hospital I use when needed, and my doctor is on staff there. It is a Catholic hospital. They have my medical Power of Attorney and my Medical Directive, and each has my spouse as the responsible person. When I was admitted one time they asked me if that person was a "friend" or a "partner". I told them "partner". The lady didn't flinch, and neither did my doctor.
That's why I love Palm Springs so much. When I first moved here and visited my new doctor, that was one of the first questions he asked me. He made it clear that he had zero problem with it, and wanted to know, instead of ignoring it like the Long Beach doctor would do. However, seeing the other patients in the waiting room, I doubt if it is surprising to him at all.

I think it IS important for a physician to realize his or her patient's sexuality since it is so much of who we are.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#70 Mar 11, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>That's why I love Palm Springs so much. When I first moved here and visited my new doctor, that was one of the first questions he asked me. He made it clear that he had zero problem with it, and wanted to know, instead of ignoring it like the Long Beach doctor would do. However, seeing the other patients in the waiting room, I doubt if it is surprising to him at all.
I think it IS important for a physician to realize his or her patient's sexuality since it is so much of who we are.
My spouse and I have had three different primary care physicians over the last 25 years. We told each of them, and received no negative reactions. Same with the hospital.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#71 Mar 11, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, when they ask. They do sometimes, but not all the time. And this is the hospital I use when needed, and my doctor is on staff there. It is a Catholic hospital. They have my medical Power of Attorney and my Medical Directive, and each has my spouse as the responsible person. When I was admitted one time they asked me if that person was a "friend" or a "partner". I told them "partner". The lady didn't flinch, and neither did my doctor.
Excellent.

Most in the medical profession are aware of the realities of life, and are much more supportive of gay clients and co-workers.

I passed by a mobile blood bank last week, and wondered if I should have stopped in to remind them they were missing out. They keep saying they are in short supply and need donors.

But I was in a hurry, and told myself the workers are probably already in support, and I would only be harassing them, but you never know till you try. They weren't busy at all. Maybe next time.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#72 Mar 11, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>That's why I love Palm Springs so much. When I first moved here and visited my new doctor, that was one of the first questions he asked me. He made it clear that he had zero problem with it, and wanted to know, instead of ignoring it like the Long Beach doctor would do. However, seeing the other patients in the waiting room, I doubt if it is surprising to him at all.
I think it IS important for a physician to realize his or her patient's sexuality since it is so much of who we are.
Agreed.

I started screening my doctors many years ago. I don't want one who is phobic, biased, or uninformed.

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
BIG LaBOR DAY WEEKEND PARTAAY!!! 36 min Lil Stinky Jr 1
ARCHIVES Revisited 48 min Lil Stinky Jr 5
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr RiccardoFire 8,372
40 years ago today 2 hr SteveO 6
FuNKY ARCHIVES 2 hr SteveO 4
News Mr Gay Europe wants to raise awareness around s... 3 hr TomInElPaso 11
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Beatnik 53,602
More from around the web