hey do not be prejudiced ok even normal people contract aids
2007-05-24 02:53:37 · 16 answers · asked by legolas g/Frederich 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
The history of HIV and blood donations predicts this policy will stay. when people first started getting sick from AIDS, this policy against accepting the blood products of gay men was instated (1983) as a precaution against contaminating the blood supply. not much was known then about the disease, so it made perfect sense to do this. well, a lot more is known now,a nd there's a large part of the blood products industry that feels this moritorium is unnecessary. The rates of HIV infection in gay men is probably about thatof minority straight women with multiple partners. The difference is that it's still ok to discriminate against gays while a policy that refused donations against any racial minority group would cause an uproar.
The whole thing is stupid now since they test every donation with extremely accurate tests. In fact, i have known straight people who donated simply to check their HIV status. it's a really stupid policy now. And seriously, how many people do you think lie to the Red Cross when theydonate. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.....
2007-05-24 03:29:46 · answer #1 · answered by Jnr528 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Heterosexuals get AIDS, too, but isn't a history of homosexual intercourse (for men) a higher risk factor? The FDA's job is to play the odds, and assess which odds are too high of a risk to bet on. That's not to say that gay men are evil or deserve AIDS as God's punishment or something stupid and bigoted like that. The British are more or less banned from giving blood in America, too, but that doesn't mean we think they're less endowed with human dignity than Americans. It just means we think that they've got a much bigger chance of giving someone Mad Cow disease than an American. If and only if males who had engaged are not at significantly higher risk for AIDS and other blood-borne diseases is this an issue of prejudice. Since I don't know what the statistics are about all this, I just wanted to make this one little point. Anyone out there know if males who engage in homosexual intercourse are or are not more at risk than heterosexuals?
2007-05-24 03:08:24 · answer #2 · answered by harlomcspears 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I just read that story, and it's BULL. There is no database of gay men kept by blood centers, and if a gay man went to give blood today, they would happily take his blood. They do ask screening questions. But all blood is tested anyway. I've given blood on numerous occasions, and have never been turned down because I'm gay.
Love Jack
2007-05-24 02:58:57 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They've been doing this for awhile now. That's why men are asked if they've had sex with a man since 1977 when guys go give blood. If you answer yes then you cannot give blood. You can still give blood if you choose to lie though.
2007-05-24 02:58:34 · answer #4 · answered by Corey D. 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The percentages of HIV positive donations are going to be much higher. They must be getting enough blood from lower risk groups and don't want to expose those taking the blood to the dangers involved. Lab workers do have accidents, do stick themselves and do expose open wounds to split blood.
Mistakes happen in a lab, nothing is 100%. Tainted blood does get past the screens and it is better to take blood that is less likely to be tainted in the first place.
Sorry but life and death is more important than being politically correct. Sometimes it makes sense to be pragmatic and do the right thing instead of bowing to special interest groups with political agenda's.
Maybe if you feel so strongly about it you could volenteer to be the one to take blood from gays and IV drug users. Maybe you could volenteer, in case of accident, to only accept blood from gays. Bet your own life instead of demanding that others risk thier lives for political correctness.
2007-05-24 03:06:26 · answer #5 · answered by ninebadthings 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
that is absolutely crazy....where did you read this. I remember somebody posting something last week in reference to the red cross, but is this a fact regarding the FDA too??
**EDIT**
OMG I just read the article...absolutely crazy...that angers me beyond anything I have seen in a long time.
2007-05-24 02:56:40 · answer #6 · answered by ☮ wickey wow wow ♀♀ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this prejudiced practice has been around way too long. Who is to say who can and who cannot help save a life??
2007-05-24 03:09:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He should sue, I totally agree, gay doesn't equal diseased, this isn't the stone age anymore. That's ridiculous.
2007-05-24 04:10:57 · answer #8 · answered by Luis 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
that is so stupid.
if i was the fda i would let gay men donate blood
2007-05-24 03:42:37 · answer #9 · answered by princess-of-somany 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I saw that in the newspaper this morning. Amazing is all I can say.
Don't blame the government too much - being small minded is in the job description.
2007-05-24 02:57:17 · answer #10 · answered by nycguy10002 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋