bailey bud wrote: There's enough blood testing technology that I have no issues with a homosexual individual donating.
Whatever trips your trigger, Buddy!
Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?
HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.
True. So individuals who are at high risk for HIV infection should not donate blood. However, being gay is not a high risk category in and of itself. Being sexually promiscuous or an IV drug user is.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
FredHayek wrote: Currently the Feds will not let homosexual males donate blood. Is it time to repeal this old rule from the AIDS era?
Or is is more important that the public believe everything possible is being done to keep our blood supply safe?
I would like the see the current numbers on what percentage of gay males have HIV/AIDS compared to the general population before they repeal this rule. It does suck to be denied.
Fred, I thought the restriction was on homosexuals males THAT ADMIT they are homosexual and male. So that would only be about 1/2 of them restricted to giving blood. All you have to do to give blood is not say you are gay.
This is way safer in the long run then letting them record you are gay on some forever govt form. I think most people in fringe groups, such as gay folks, not bad but certainly fringe, realize that even though things are trending in their favor right now, that laws could change in just a few events or after one health scare to literally make being gay illegal again (please don't pretend this is not possible or not likely). Remember we are basing society more and more around the majority, and the majority are not gay. Any minority that is not eliminated or assimilated is merely tolerated, tolerance is not sustainable, respect is and on average, very few people in the US respect gay folks, they simply tolerate them (as implied with this law that is unlikely to change). Even if you can convince folks to let their govt ordain a gay relationship, this is a big step from wanting that blood running around in their veins.
I say let everyone donate and test it for what we know, don't most folks assume they are doing that. I have rcvd much blood and never asked if it came from a gay guy - in fact I am sure some of it did.
Good point OTN. They are really trusting people to be honest. If you want to lie, you probably will be permitted.
And good point SC, just like there are low risk heterosexuals, there are low risk homosexuals. Long term relationships or celibacy.
To me, the restrictions on homosexual male donations was just designed to make Americans feel safe about their blood supply. There are plenty of heterosexuals who are having unsafe sex.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
