Posted on 03/18/2006 10:57:16 PM PST by MRMEAN
The Food and Drug Administration is considering revising its policy that bars as a blood donor any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, officials said yesterday.
The change in policy is being recommended by the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, which collect virtually all the blood used for transfusions nationwide.
The three groups requested the change at a March 8 workshop the FDA convened to review the latest scientific information about the safety of the blood supply, arguing that current tests and screening methods have improved enough to protect transfusion recipients without the lifetime ban.
Instead, the group recommended that men be barred from donating for only a year after having had sex with another man, treating them the same as other groups at increased risk for spreading sexually transmitted virus through donated blood.
SNIP
The FDA implemented the lifetime ban in the mid-1980s when concerns about the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, were running high and many questions remained about the ease with which people could spread the virus and the reliability of screening methods. Since then, the accuracy of testing has improved substantially, as have questionnaires that all donors answer to identify those posing the greatest risk, Dodge said.
SNIP
Agency officials are "definitely interested in hearing all the science, and if there's hard evidence in place that changing the policy would not endanger the blood supply they're definitely open to it," King said.
SNIP
"The blood deferral policy that exists is not based on science. It's based on inertia and in many cases stereotypes," said Jon Givner of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Oh. That 'stereotype' about gay men contracting AIDS and spreading it to others. While we're at it, perhaps heroin addicts should be permitted to donate blood too. This is reason 1001 why the Red Cross gets nothing from me. I donate to the Salvation Army instead (and I'm not Christian).
My initial reaction was that this was a case of political correctness run amok, but upon reflection, I don't think so. Yes, homosexuality is wrong, and perhaps depraged. That doesn't mean that we should exaggerate the level of risk in using a gay (or once gay) person's blood for donation purposes. I think their proposed approach is sensible: treat them like any other high-risk group.
If homosexuals want to donate blood, that's fine by me. Just make sure it is labeled "GAY BLOOD" and the intended recipient knows where it comes from.
The PC crowd realizes that they have no authority to oppose any profiling if they allow a gay to be profiled on the possibility that he might have HIV since all profiling is about those kinds of possibilities.
People might want to start banking their own blood. Might be a good business to start or buy stock in.
You are aware that around 10% of the gay population has HIV/AIDS? And that this goes as high as near 25% among black gay men?
I'd be very sure that these tests have a very, very low false negative rate. You're probably right, but we're talking about potentially wrecking someone's immune system here.
I think the blood ban on homsexuals should be amended to allow homosexuals that are either celibate or have had only one monogamous partner for the last 18 months to two years and have tested negative twice on each of sexually transmitted diseases, including hiv/aids.
Yes, right on! And what about all those poor prostitutes! Don't they have as much of a right to infect the blood supply as any American?
No comment from the OP, a troll?
Fine. I'll comment. The Red Cross is turning away responsible donors based on political correctness. Thus they must embrace politically correct donors to continue their bloody trade.
AIDS contaminated blood in Canada is a scandal un-noticed in Arkansas whence Gov. Clinton(spit) approved the transfer.
The ARC refuses donations from legally armed citizens.
How do you prove a person has been celibate for that period of time? Remember back a few years when a college Gay Right's group was telling gay students to go into blood banks, lie about their sexual identity so they could donate?
Good - their fixations on sexuality and self destruction propel homosexuals into unhealthy lifestyles that make them perhpas the most most disease ridden (no pun intended) minorities in the nation.
OK - what about me?
Between the ages of about 11 and 16 (early 60's) It was discovered that I had some growth hormone dificiency. I was about 3' tall. After much doctor visiting it was decided that I needed growth hormone. Where did they get that in the 60's? From human cadavers! I was injected every other day for those 5 years. Grew alot, but had no idea what was being injected.
Now I am banned for life from giving blood due to fear of prions and the human variant of mad cow disease.
If gays can give blood and a rather large portion of that population group has HIV, then why can't I? A rather small portion of my population group has CJ disease.
Rather than be politically correct, common sense would appear to be a better option here. I wouldn't expect anyone would want my blood - especially a parent having it given to a child - when there is a possibility that in 30 years their brain might start to disintegrate.
Banking my own blood seems like a pretty good option, or ID the sexual preference of the donor and let the recipient make the choice.
My first reaction this this was: You gotta be kidding me! Of course, there is nothing to stop gay men from lying on the questionnaire and donating anyway. I think they still test blood after its donated, but even so--it chills me to think some will slip through the cracks.
No... what would suck is that you wouldn't have to get HIV or Hep C if the high risk addicts and homosexuals are kept out....and still live while being treated with "clean" blood or blood products...
This is PC crap gone crazy. The American Red Cross and Heart Association are top heavy with libs and the politically correct. It's that same with most organizations.... the people that can't do sh#t, run the organizations of the people who do the work. They come up with little rules and other crap to follow in order to justify their existence.
IF they're honest about it..You trust them?
I suggest they give blood to each other. If it's so safe, they shouldn't mind. Why endanger the rest of the population when they don't mind the risky business of homosexual sex?
If this policy changes, families need to start reserving their own blood supplies. Liberalism is dangerous.
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.