Posted on 06/15/2016 9:35:06 AM PDT by Faith Presses On
...This week we faced a new challenge: mass violence in the very place we felt most comfortable, accepted and secure. After the attack, the city of Orlando and the state of Florida mobilized. Officials called on people in the area to donate blood for those who were injured in the shooting. Thousands of people have reportedly lined up to donate. But some of them — gay and bisexual men — are unable to.
As a registered nurse, I know the importance of donated blood...
(snip)
But many of the people who felt the tragedy most closely can’t offer their help. That's because the Food and Drug Administration bars sexually active gay men from donating. This ban is ostensibly in place to protect blood supplies from being contaminated with H.I.V. But it dates from a time before H.I.V. testing was standard practice for blood donations. It is now generally agreed that H.I.V. can be detected in the blood of an infected person within a matter of weeks. Donors should be assessed according to their risk — not their sexual orientation. In the wake of a hateful attack that left over a hundred people from our community dead or injured, this ban must be removed.
(snip)
Several years ago, I went to donate blood for a friend in nursing school who suffers from sickle cell anemia. To my shock, I was turned away after filling out a questionnaire that asked if I had ever had sexual contact with another man. According to the F.D.A.’s policy at the time, I was barred from donating blood for life. I was embarrassed and outraged. A few days later, my boyfriend (now husband) and I started a project called Banned4Life to fight this outdated policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440270/posts
This is a related thread I posted yesterday on how the Democratically controlled media outlets are doing flimsy propaganda pieces on this.
They now include: The N.Y. Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, Time, Newsweek, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Salon, Cosmopolitan, Slate, Boston Globe editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, Mediaite and LawNewz, LiveScience - to name just some.
All of these reports simply ignore the FDA report that lays out their reasons for keeping a one-year ban. The report carefully documents how the studied the issue and arrived at their decisions. Yet the media is reporting misinformation.
Ask Ryan White
I’m mixed on this one. If there are instant disease checks available, I don’t see why gays can’t donate blood.
If I’m an operating table, I don’t care who’s blood it is, as long as its been tested for diseases.
“AIDS,AIDS,AIDS,everybody has,AIDS,AIDS,AIDS!”
Come on everybody, we’ve got quilting to do.
Good job, HarleyLady27! I thought of that too! GMTA!
A: Aids.
Next!
When the FDA lifted the lifetime ban last year, they issued a detailed report on why they still recommended the one-year ban.
They thoroughly discuss the issues and options, and their conclusion that a ban was still necessary.
I posted excerpts from the report here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440453/posts
In my own words, here are some of the finding from the report:
* The total lifetime ban was getting less effective because a small, but growing and significant number of sexually active gay men were donating blood anyway. Many were doing so because they considered the ban discriminatory, so it seemed some change needed to be made.
* After carefully studying the matter, which is documented in the report, the FDA recommended the one-year waiting time after last sexual contact for MSM rather than completely lifting the ban for the following reasons:
- The extremely high levels of HIV infection among MSM.
- They determined that men who have a history of having sex with men still have a far greater incidence of HIV infection than do men who have many multiple partners.
- They also write that in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships considered to be monogamous, about 25% of them actually aren’t, and it is the homosexual relationships that are falsely believed to be monogamous that are a much greater threat in terms of HIV infection.
They also note that a potential blood donor who is in a male homosexual relationship might truthfully report that his relationship is monogamous, even while his partner is having sexual contact with other men.
- For a variety of reasons, other options besides the one-year ban, such as simply relying on testing the blood or testing donors beforehand, aren’t effective and/or practical.
* The report says that while the FDA knows that keeping this ban isn’t a perfect solution, it is the best option among all the possibilities.
* The report also mentions the concern that a new infection might quickly spread among sexually active gay men and infect the blood supply before it could be detected.
Because you may be a carrier of weird germs???”
If you have to ask, you’re too stupid to comprehend.
The reason gays “can’t” donate blood is the same reason I can’t. I served in Germany during the time of Mad Cow disease. As a consequence, there is a chance my blood is no good.
The way the Red Cross screens blood is to mix the blood of many donors into a big sample, and then test the sample. They don’t test each donor. Maybe because of expense or because the testing process destroys the blood’s usefulness. In any case, if any donor in a sample has bad blood, they throw out the entire amount.
Having been in the army, I was happy to give blood. And, from time to time, I even felt a need to give blood to show solidarity. I therefore appreciate that this man would like to donate blood even though his motivation in this case is a little selfish. To me, you should give blood because some other American (or an ally of our country) needs blood. Not because somebody of your group needs blood.
Because you have a high probability of being a disease vector, that’s why.
yes, that is one of the worst of the Clintonista scandals, and far too little talked about
I hope Trump finds a time to get everyone to know about the Clintons selling fatally tainted blood supplies to innocent people
Because testing all donated blood is prohibitively expensive, and not all testing is completely accurate or able to detect recent infection. People are barred from donating blood for all manner of possible exposure to disease, for instance if you’ve traveled to certain countries. It’s not just gays.
If someone who is gay wants to donate blood all that badly, I’d be willing to consider it if they certify that they’re tested for a full STD panel monthly and are held legally liable for damages if any recipient(s) are infected with HIV or Hepatitis C as a result of their donating blood.
The mainstream and left-wing media are all publishing stories like this one in the last few days that push for the ban to be lifted.
This is despite the fact that the FDA ALREADY PUBLISHED A REPORT last year that showed they EXHAUSTIVELY STUDIED the issue. They went through all the reasons why a one-year ban is needed.
I posted key excerpts of the FDA report in another thread.
It is a worthwhile read AND an excellent reference on this issue, as it simply and clearly addresses and refutes each and every reckless claim being made.
If you have any questions on this issue, see this report, and your question will likely be answered in one of the excerpts I pulled out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3440453/posts
In my own words, some highlights from the report:
* The total lifetime ban was getting less effective because a small, but growing and significant number of sexually active gay men were donating blood anyway. Many were doing so because they considered the ban discriminatory, so it seemed some change needed to be made.
* After carefully studying the matter, which is documented in the report, the FDA recommended the one-year waiting time after last sexual contact for MSM rather than completely lifting the ban for the following reasons:
- The extremely high levels of HIV infection among MSM.
- They determined that men who have a history of having sex with men still have a far greater incidence of HIV infection than do men who have many multiple partners.
- They also write that in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships considered to be monogamous, about 25% of them actually aren’t, and it is the homosexual relationships that are falsely believed to be monogamous that are a much greater threat in terms of HIV infection.
They also note that a potential blood donor who is in a male homosexual relationship might truthfully report that his relationship is monogamous, even while his partner is having sexual contact with other men.
- For a variety of reasons, other options besides the one-year ban, such as simply relying on testing the blood or testing donors beforehand, aren’t effective and/or practical.
* The report says that while the FDA knows that keeping this ban isn’t a perfect solution, it is the best option among all the possibilities.
* The report also mentions the concern that a new infection might quickly spread among sexually active gay men and infect the blood supply before it could be detected.
We are trying to say OUR country, so shouldn't WE help also???
Because you’re an AIDs or HIV risk.
Supply a link
yeah but unfortunately, due to the sick narcissism of ppl who think they have some “right” to give blood, the barriers to blood donations by gays are crumbling.....
HIV and Hepatitis-C are far more likely to be in blood donations from gays, and there is no adequate testing regime which will protect all patients
as a cancer survivor who had to receive at least 8 units of blood for surgeries and severe chemo, it is particularly “personal” to me that there are selfish morons who think they have some “right” to force tainted blood into the blood supply
you make false assumptions
1) I never said to put “everything” on Trump, I simply know that he can get a lot of attention when he wants to make something an issue
2) I do send out lots of info to lots of media and web outlets, why do you assume otherwise?
I merely hope that Trump will make a point and you have some problem with that, I don’t know why
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.