Gays being discriminated against?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_he_me/blood_gay_men

This article talks about the FDA's permanent ban on male homosexuals, IV drug users, and those who pay for sex to ever donate blood.
The reasons for this are obvious. However there are advocacy groups calling this discrimination. How could hopefully stopping a possible HIV victim from spreading a deadly disease be discrimination? I've personally known somebody that tested positive for HIV after receiving a blood transfusion. No she wasn't a druggie, she was a 72 year old grandmother for those that want say something stupid.
I could care less what grown people do in their own bedrooms, but calling this discrimination is beyond stupid. We're talking about AID's, not the common cold.

Okay people. Many of you missed the point. It's not just gay men we're talking about. It's gay men, IV drug users and those who pay for sex.
They test all blood period. But if you fall into one of those categories, your banned plain and simple.
Sorry. But I would like to know that any blood that myself or a loved one had to receive via a transfusion was not possibly tainted.
Heres a thought. Label all blood as to who it came from and what behaviors they practice for the recipient to see up front. If you think this ban is discrimination, then YOU take the blood from the homosexual.

Smedrik

Sorry, but being gay IS a choice. You'll never convince me otherwise.
Aside from that, what ever an adult chooses to be is their own business, but I don't want others forcing THEIR business on me.

Answer 1

I don't think the issue is about "labeling" anybody with anything.

What I believe is that HIV has become a problem that goes beyond the gay community.

If I needed blood, my only concern would be that it be disease free blood. Because I'm not certain that medical technology has kept abreast of all the causes and means of transferring the disease, we've become overly "protective" of how we collect or who we collect blood from.

It's not my belief that anybody wishes to "discriminate" against any social group....but that we may grasping at straws to place a "quick fix" in place that no longer is applicable to the situation!

Best wishes.

Answer 2

I don't understand what the problem is. Donated blood is always (or so I believe...) screened. I the article indicated that the FDA admitted that the HIV screens currently in use do not detect it 100 per cent of the time. Why is there a ban against gay men, when clearly, according to the FDA, ANYONE who submits a sample could provide infected blood with the possibility that it won't be detected? Apparently, there is a flaw in the system, and gay men are the scapegoats.

If they are available, or are even under study, advanced screening techniques for every submission would not only negate the myth that all gay men are "suspect" (African American women in heterosexual relationships are actually the fastest growing population of HIV positive persons), it would also open up the possibility for individuals who actually want to contribute to donate blood.

Unfortunately, this ban appears to be less about the possibility of having infected blood introduced into the existing supply, and more about the misguided and outdated fears of individuals who should know better, perpetuating the distrust of persons different from them.

Answer 3

i'm afraid that your telling them that homosexuality isn't a call won't replace their minds. non secular definitely everyone seems to be with the help of their very nature proof against evidence with reference to their faith. it extremely is the two cultural and non secular; there is an extremely hassle-free cultural stigma on homosexuality, quite re: adult men. upload to that the actuality that they think in a holy e book that asserts gay people must be stoned and you have have been given a enormously poisonous blend. edit: Did you in basic terms say interior the further information that your opinion is actuality? by way of fact it is perhaps no longer how opinion works. At any cost, it won't remember one way or yet another no remember if homosexuality is a call or no longer. It shouldn't remember no remember if it extremely is developmental or genetic, or some combination of the two. you may argue approximately that in case you like, even if it extremely is beside the factor: there is no longer something incorrect with being gay, or having gay intercourse. regardless of if it have been a call, there could be no longer something incorrect with it. non secular people holding "by way of fact God says it extremely is incorrect" does not make it so. Edit 2: @Jt, Westboro Baptist Church could say that *you* are not a Christian. Why are you precise, and that they incorrect?

Answer 4

but why is it discriminating against gays. What if 75% of all gay men used condoms (it does happen, gays don't want hiv either) maybe they should focus on making the test for HIV in donated blood more accurate. Just saying that gay men can't donate blood is stupid. Maybe not allow all people to donate blood x days (the window that the hiv virus takes to show itself i think it's 30 but not sure) after having sex/unprotected sex, not just gay men.

Answer 5

Currently young women are the fasted growing group of people infected with HIV. It is a long standing myth that HIV is a gay disease.

It is a form of discrimination IV drug users, prostitutes and Johns had a choice to engage in a high risk lifestyle. Just being gay does not make one high risk. Being gay is not a choice.

Answer 6

This is tricky. Statistically, being gay greatly increases the likelihood of carrying an STD. However, with increased education and acceptance this is changing but the stereotypes are not. I can understand why it would be offensive to a willing donater to be rejected based on something so personal. However, until every donation can be tested in a timely and affordable manner, I think this is a reasonable caution.

Answer 7

Consider this:

I was a bartender for 15 years and knew MANY people. The first I knew to catch AIDS was my friend Trisha, a white, Christian, 32-year old woman, who got it from her husband, who caught it from a prostitute. She's now dead.

It would be incredibly stupid to sign your own death warrant with bigotry and ignorance. Stop playing to false-moralism, and open your eyes to reality.

Answer 8

They have come to the conclusion that only gay men can get aids and thats retarded and their poor excuse to look like they get things done and are safe. Its ignorant woman can get it too.

Answer 9

Big ph~ucking deal,who cares if people think it's discrimination!Alot of people aren't allowed to donate blood like diabetics,anaemic and so on. Get
over it people:P

It is for your own safety!

Answer 10

Because it's labelling every gay man as having AIDS. That's ignorant.