I thought they do test all the blood! No?
The problem, at least as I understand the post above, is that a small percentage of HIV-tainted blood won't show up on the test. But that blood can still infect a recipient.
Ban kept for gay men donating blood
- Thread starter Autumn2004
- Start date
I thought they do test all the blood! No?
The problem, at least as I understand the post above, is that a small percentage of HIV-tainted blood won't show up on the test. But that blood can still infect a recipient.
nova said he was in a monogamous relationship so his blood should be safe. the truth is nova can only speak to his own action. he would not be the first to not know if they are cheated on. the government is using that fact to exclude nova as long as nova is honest on the paper work. makes sense to me.(that was sarcasm btw.) i married a straight man. i have never cheated. i believe he never cheated. the truth is i can not swear on my soul he never had sex with some1 else. should i not be excluded for the same reason nova is? my husband would not be the first guy who claims he is straight to have a wife and a boyfriend at the same time.
i would think if my husband is able to lie to me every day he is even more likely to lie on the paper work than a man who is honest about his sexuality. givin these facts wouldnt nova be a safe doner than i?
if the government wants us to be safe you would think it would increase funding for more test. newer test. better testing to catch it even earlier. or we could just let small kids be the only donors.
i would think if my husband is able to lie to me every day he is even more likely to lie on the paper work than a man who is honest about his sexuality. givin these facts wouldnt nova be a safe doner than i?
if the government wants us to be safe you would think it would increase funding for more test. newer test. better testing to catch it even earlier. or we could just let small kids be the only donors.
I'm sure you know this, but of course they want to run the test b/c at some point doctors were sued for not doing it and not diagnosing early. Same catchall reasoning that the FDA has employed here.
Nova, you hinted at this - and this is where I have the problem with the ban.
The blood centers asked for the prohibition to be lifted. The people with the best information and greatest day-to-day expertise want men who have sex with men to donate. If they want it lifted, it should be lifted.
The FDA - the government agency that rubber-stamps drugs like candy (unless of course it's a controversial contraceptive) - is putting its foot down. There's no powerful monetary group lobbying for the FDA to lift the ban.
It has much more to do with politics and money than statistics.
The blood centers asked for the prohibition to be lifted. The people with the best information and greatest day-to-day expertise want men who have sex with men to donate. If they want it lifted, it should be lifted.
The FDA - the government agency that rubber-stamps drugs like candy (unless of course it's a controversial contraceptive) - is putting its foot down. There's no powerful monetary group lobbying for the FDA to lift the ban.
It has much more to do with politics and money than statistics.
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
Nova, I think you probably are about as risky as I am (married 15 years in June). Maybe less. But we are both precluded from giving blood for the same reason. Although we haven't done anything recently to put us at risk, the slightest chance that our exposure to something that could have lain dormant for many years and not show up in some medical test scares them spitless.
There are 2 issues here: safety and bias. The safety thing is a no brainer. I believe they are doing everything they can to have an adequate supply of blood while erring on the side of caution to prevent the inevitable panic situation if even one case of disease transmission were caused through a transfusion. A few years ago a few people were exposed to something (West Nile, I think) through blood products and all hell broke loose.
The bias issue is different. I think doctors walk a fine line between making sure their patients understand all of the risks and offending people. I know in our pregnancy loss support group we have had more than one mom totally POed b/c they have been pressed hard after a loss about if it is even slightly possible that the baby is not their husband's when the mom is Rh- and the dad is Rh+. I understand how upsetting this is, but I also see the doctor's view of how critical it is for the mom to get the Rhogam shot in a certain time if there is even the slightest chance, and that some people might not want to admit it.
It's a fact no one wants to think about. People cheat. Men and women, gay and straight. It affects our health. Often, the partner has no idea. Sometimes a medical test is the only way we have of knowing. Sometimes that test saves our lives and ruins it at the same time.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are not doing this out of some misguided prejudice or fear of spreading gayness throughout the hemophiliac and juvenile cancer community. I have to trust that they are doing their level best to admit that the tests they do on this collected blood is the best available, but that they aren't perfect and, for now, not collecting from certain groups is the safest course.
I hope that's all it is.
This is off topic some - but I'm curious. I'm Rh- and my doctors just told me that I *had* to get the Rhogam shot. They didn't concern themselves with the + or - of my husband.
The second pregnancy they did offer that I could have him come in and get tested and then I could avoid the shot. They didn't know of his needle phobia or his size, or else they wouldn't have offered - I guarantee. I took one for the team and got the shot.
So why are they questioning the mothers after a loss? Because the mothers voluntarily didn't get the shot? It seems to me that a dr trying to diagnose infertility or multiple miscarriages would explain how your body builds antibodies and then mention if a father was + that could contribute to it. No reason to delve into extramarital affairs... It just seems an unnecessary and insensitive thing.
They DO test all the blood so this is a mute point..
Now with Angelmom I would agree there could be a potential risk because there is no test for madcow (I don't know the gestation for developing symptoms or if one can simply be a carrier)
So IMO that would be a legitimate safety concern.
The question should not be "are you a gay man" but "are you monogamous?"
Even if you are and not gay who is to say your spouse is faithful?
This is about the dumbest thing I have read all day.
Now with Angelmom I would agree there could be a potential risk because there is no test for madcow (I don't know the gestation for developing symptoms or if one can simply be a carrier)
So IMO that would be a legitimate safety concern.
The question should not be "are you a gay man" but "are you monogamous?"
Even if you are and not gay who is to say your spouse is faithful?
This is about the dumbest thing I have read all day.
sherri, I am so impressed with your posts today that I have decided to completely overlook that the fact that you live in the "F" state. (This is a joke. I was raised and lived in Ft. Lauderdale for 23 years.)
angel, you and I agree that safety is paramount. (But having an adequate quantity of blood is a "safety" issue as well.)
Bias in this case only matters to me if it inadvertently interferes with safety.
ang points out that local blood centers requested the ban be lifted or redefined. It was higher ups at the FDA that denied the request.
Given the current and unprecedented politicization of every branch of the federal government, I can't assume the higher ups are just doing what they believe to be right. Why would the FDA be different than FEMA or Justice?
Not that I'm going to man the barricades over blood donation, but I hope we end up with whatever policy actually provides the most safety.
you just envy or tan lines.
Did you notice where *I* live? It's rained here a grand total of 10 or 20 minutes in 2 years. Tan lines ain't a problem.
(Neither are humidity, mosquitoes or sink holes.)
Or afraid he'll lose points with his boss who is from the Christian Coalition or Liberty U.
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
Jumping OT with you...the one case I remember specifically was when the mom and dad were both Rh- and the mom was refusing the Rhogam shot. Which, if she was 100% sure that the baby's father was Rh-, is fine. But the doctors were nervous b/c, as you pointed out, the shot is standard. It's a safety thing. Life and death, no kidding. And few women want to admit that they are carrying another man's child in front of their husband and a slew of other people, and have it written down on a medical chart where it could be used against them later. The doctors pressed, even made her husband leave the room and asked AGAIN, and she got :furious: . I felt for both sides. Anyway, that's the story.
I guess b/c this ban has been in place for so long, that I find it hard to attribute it only to this administration. And b/c I'm sure there are other times that the FDA and the local collection agencies don't agree on what is safe. Does it occur to anyone that this story is a non-story (the ban has been in place for ages) but politically it is dangerous and the timing is right?
True, but the situation was much different when the ban was instituted in 1983. No test at all then.
I don't think it's a total "non-story" since I keep hearing about a blood shortage, particularly in the event of a natural disaster. But I doubt there is much political danger. Not that I have been empowered to represent my "tribe," but if I'm not indignant (just suspicious), I don't think you're going to see massive protests over this.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 7,475
- Reaction score
- 1,101
Maybe it's been in place for ages, but it doesn't mean it's the correct thing to keep in place now.
When AIDS first arrived on the scene, there was a lot of misinformation about it, about how it spreads, and who caught it.
We're better than that now.
Any high risk group should not be able to donate. If 500 folks from a high risk group donate, and one little kid dies as a result, IMO, it is not worth it.
Who cares if we offend some folks in an (overzealous?) attempt to keep the blood safe for our loved ones??
Give it another 5 years with these standards, and see what happens. Being TOOOOO careful is NOT a bad thing, if it is my kid that needs the transfusion.
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
I have been told about the "critical shortage" constantly since I was eligible to give blood. My DH gets automated phone calls claiming it is "vital" for him to donate every 56 days, and has for years.
All blood has been tested for HIV since 1985 per the Red Cross site.
http://chapters.redcross.org/ca/socal/blood/safety.html
A safe blood supply is vitally important. Most people choose to donate because they want to share their healthy blood with someone who needs it. Some potential donors, however, may have been exposed to diseases which can be spread through blood. Specifically, some people can be at high risk for exposure to HIV (the virus which causes AIDS) or hepatitis without realizing it. Red Cross asks lifestyle and behavior questions prior to donation to prevent the spread if communicable diseases.
The American Red Cross does several things to protect the blood supply from HIV:
The Red Cross educated donors about who should give blood by having every potential donor read the publication, "What You Must Know Before Giving Blood."
Trained staff interview potential donors and review their medical history
Donors have the opportunity both before and after the donation to stop, and anonymously instruct the Red Cross not to use their blood for transfusion to patients.
<snip>
The American Red Cross makes every effort to protect the blood supply from the AIDS virus. The risk of being infected with HIV from a blood transfusion is very low. The risk of infection exists during what is called the "window period." This is the time between the actual infection with HIV and when the test can detect the presence of the virus or antibodies to the virus in a persons blood. An estimate of the length of this period is now 12-16 days.
Since the Red Cross began testing blood for the HIV-antibody in early 1985, the risk of HIV-contaminated blood entering the blood supply has dropped dramatically. According to latest medical research, the chance of receiving an HIV-infected transfusion is estimated to be 1 in 676,000 or less.
One more thing: (on the topic of liars)
Why doesn't the Red Cross pay its blood donors to increase the blood supply?
Scientific data shows that people who donate blood for altruistic reasons are the safest blood donors. As an extra layer of safety to the blood supply, Red Cross accepts only volunteer blood donors.+
http://www.pleasegiveblood.org/education/faq.php#safe
As I said before blood CAN be tested for HIV once it's donated.
And to answer your other question...hmmm, no I've never given blood. I had leukemia at the age of eleven and am unable to donate. Blood donation is important to all of us because who knows when they or a loved one will need it. It's always in short supply so why deny homosexual men who ARE NOT HIV positive the right to do their part.
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
See my post above. The test is not 100% accurate.
Guardians Monthly Goal
Staff online
-
GhostwheelPyrrhonist -
SillybillyAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 154
- Guests online
- 1,150
- Total visitors
- 1,304