Posted on 07/13/2005 4:05:47 AM PDT by Dane
Gay men should be able to donate blood, students say College group pressures Red Cross
By STEVEN BODZIN Los Angeles Times July 11. 2005 8:06AM
WASHINGTON - For more than a decade, gay rights advocates have grumbled about a federal policy that forbids blood donation by men who have had sex with men.
They say that the policy, originally intended to keep HIV-positive blood from entering the nation's blood supply, implies gay men are inherently sick and that it prevents healthy people from donating.
Occasional protests and talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees blood banks, have brought no change.
Now, some college students have taken up the cause, and they're taking a new tack. Instead of pressuring the FDA directly, they are going after the American Red Cross - the largest and highest-profile blood collector in the country.
Unlike America's Blood Centers, which represents the non-Red Cross blood banks that collect most of the nation's blood, the Red Cross publicly supports the policy. Activists say that if they can get the Red Cross to change its stance, the FDA will follow.
While many gay rights advocates have treated the blood ban as a low priority, college groups have begun to take on the issue. They argue that, although safe blood supplies are essential, this particular policy is outdated, ineffective and homophobic.
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
You'll just have to trust me on this one. I have good reason to believe this, but I will not go into it here.
I belong to the gallon club, and once when they stuck the needle into me a literal fountain of blood spewed out of my arm.
The attendee and those around me all got splattered by my blood.
She did not make me feel real great when she told me if I ever got into an accident I would bleed to death before they got me to the hospital.
"Many people with Aids have sex without informing their partner . Is there a difference between this and giving blood? "
Actually, there is a difference. Going out and having unprotected sex with an uninformed party while you are HIV infected is premeditated murder at most, attempted murder at least.
Knowingly giving infected blood would probably be first degree manslaughter at most, reckless endangerment in the least.
It's a free country. If homosexuals want to start up their own blood bank, I say more power to them. It'll be a waste of time and medical devices, but I say have a nice time.
The Tylenol poisonings happened, what, 20 years ago? Do you think it is the safety seals that kept it from happening again? A not particularly bright ten-year-old could figure out how to defeat those safeties. What has kept it from happening again is that true sociopaths are rare. Not many people want to kill strangers at random. And contaminating the blood supply does not even have the allure of causing a public panic. It will just result in the anonymous deaths of complete strangers, un-noticed by anyone.
In any case, a questionnaire is not going to stop a sociopath. They will simply lie, anyway.
What's the big deal? All blood is tested before it enters the blood supply.
I'm glad some of the senseless restrictions are being lifted. A great example of this is those who have hemachromatosis. It's a disease that results in an overabundance of iron in the blood. The treatment is periodic blood donations (which blood banks won't accept). Hemachromatasis isn't communicable and the blood is perfectly safe, yet the blood taken from hemachromatosis sufferers (often a pint a week) is thrown out.
Considering the blood shortake that always exists, I agree with keeping the available donor pool as large as possible, as long as testing is still done.
What's the big deal? All blood is tested before it enters the blood supply.
I'm glad some of the senseless restrictions are being lifted. A great example of this is those who have hemachromatosis. It's a disease that results in an overabundance of iron in the blood. The treatment is periodic blood donations (which blood banks won't accept). Hemachromatasis isn't communicable and the blood is perfectly safe, yet the blood taken from hemachromatosis sufferers (often a pint a week) is thrown out.
Considering the blood shortake that always exists, I agree with keeping the available donor pool as large as possible, as long as testing is still done.
These people are sick. Their feelings are more important than someone else's life.
Actually it's more than 44% when "bisexuals" and male drug users who have sex with men are taken into the picture. For some reason they separate male drug users who have sex with men from non-drug taking men who have sex with men.
The fact that anyone - either homosexuals themselves, or the college kid fools who are making this "their" special cause - want blood which is much, MUCH more likely to be infected not only with AIDS but other blood borne diseases as well to be donated, is a sure sign that their wits are gone.
Either that, or they actively wish innocent people harm. It's amazing to what depths people will go in order to support lies.
Their lie is that being "gay" is normal, natural, you're born that way and can't change, and it is an unchangeable identity.
The truth is that no one is born with Same Sex Attraction Disorder, it is not a happy life but the contrary, and there are tens of thousands of former homosexuals.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
I have a right to be free of consequences of my actions!!! Science, prudence and logic must bend to my emotional needs!!!
And these people say with a "straight" face that they want to stop the spread of HIV. That obviously comes in a distant second place to their agenda to normalize homosexuality.
You speak certain truth.
It is witless to desire infected blood to enter our health system.
The big deal is:
The tests are not absolute. For one thing, there is a period of time (three months, I think) after exposure where the blood is infectious but there are no antibodies to detect. The donor feels no ill effects and the only identifiable risk factor is he they recently engaged in activity that exposed himself to AIDS. You do not want these people donating blood.
I guess you could have a question that asks if they engaged in high risk behavior in the past, but ceased to do so longer than six months ago. But there becomes a point where the whole process just becomes too cumbersome.
For some reason I remember the incubation period as 6 months... I'll see what I can find.
One of the driving motivations behind this is that these questionnaires remind people that certain practices are hazardous activities. From a political point of view, it is important to minimize the perception that homosexual sex is hazardous because this inconvenient fact makes people think that men having indiscriminate sex with other men is not such a great idea. While this is obviously true from a public health point of view, it makes public acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" much more difficult.
How one comes down on this issue is a good indication of how much one values the collective over the individual. If one thinks that Political Correctness is more important that a few dead innocents, one opposes these restrictions.
From my own experience, everytime I get to check those boxes "no" is another victory, another reward for living a healthy lifestyle.
A. They ARE inherantly sick.
B. These students need to quit taking the leftist political science and maybe take a biology course or two.
INCUBATION PERIOD: Antibodies can typically be detected in the blood 3-6 weeks after infection. The time from infection to an AIDS diagnosis usually takes 10-12 years in adults.
"Lavender Cross"
That name just might catch on...
If I have it, why shouldn't they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.