Is John Kerry right?
"The three largest blood donation organizations in our country -- the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) -- all agree calling the ban 'medically and scientifically unwarranted,'" wrote Kerry.
Gay rights group have also decried the practice both in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Gay Men's Health Center reported last month that the ban was created at a time when the transmission of HIV was unknown and creates a stigma that is inconsistent because straight people who have sex with "commercial sex workers" only have to wait a year before donating blood.
The group adds that the chronic shortages of blood should be proof enough that limiting gay donors is self-destructive.
Part of the shortage may be due to the fact only three of every 100 Americans donate blood, according to the American Red Cross. The agency has a long list of eligibility rules on its Web site.
I believe that all blood donations are tested for AIDS. Would allowing gays to donate seriously taint our blood supply or would it result in more donated blood with minimal added risk?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (25)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , March 04, 2010
Did you know that if you were stationed in Europe any time during 1970 through 1985 you have a life time ban from donating blood. due to the less then 1 percent chance of you having Mad Cow Disease. That is very big number of people not allowed to donate blood and it is one of the bigger group of people who on average are willing to donate in an emergency
written by tswift , March 04, 2010
Kerry is obligated to walk into a gay bathhouse and pump in a pint from the first brokeback cowboy that steps up.
written by Badda , March 04, 2010
Senator Candleface (Odin's favorite politician) is simply posturing and pandering again.
written by Kermit , March 04, 2010
Yrs, but would getting blood from a gay donor give you a sudden craving for pinot noir?
written by Harlan , March 04, 2010
Playing with volitile material here, ain't ya? The Phelps/Krod/Homophobic army of 3 may have another Log Cabin for their bigot fire with this one...so be it. These Flat Earthers need their ass handed to them regularily on a platter...
written by tswift , March 04, 2010
What do global warming goofs have to do with John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry's craving for pinot noir?
written by Kermit , March 04, 2010
I think John F. Kerry is more the chablis type. Dry and white.
written by tswift , March 04, 2010
Considering the topic, one can't help but wonder if Harlan's choice of metaphor (ass on a platter) is a Freudian thing.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 04, 2010
Is there a reliable test for Mad Cow in the blood? If so, I agree that the military is also being discriminated against.
As for banning someone from giving blood for life if "they ever had sex with a member of the same sex, even once" seems a bit extreme. The article notes that straight men are only banned for 2 years after seeing a hooker.
I would be curious to know if there is an incubation period where the blood banks are worried about missing the virus or if this is just an artifact from when they didn't test for AIDS.
I agree it's a small issue, but one I found to be interesting as I think Kerry might be actually right. If the AIDS test works on hetro blood donations, why ban homo blood donations?
written by tswift , March 04, 2010
It's not just AIDS, Barth. Homos lead the pack with all STD's...they're pretty much walking bug factories; no hyperbole, just fact.
Given that 95% of the population doesn't have that baggage, why take the risk...to make Christmas in Cambodia feel better?
No thanks.
I wouldn't want a transfusion from Barney Frank any more than I'd like one from a Lake Street meth addict.
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , March 04, 2010
Yes Bart it is 6 to 8 months for an incubation. That is why medical and first responders do not start testing until 5 months and stop some where after 14.Lat time I checked it was a every other month test till 14 months for possible HIV contact.
written by Dave Thul , March 04, 2010
Coming back from Iraq, I was banned for a year. And because I did a 2 week annual training in England in '96, I have to do additional screening every time I donate.
Whether or not the Red Cross can screen for diseases is not the issue. They work on a limited budget, and screening costs money. Far cheaper for them to get the largest supply of statistically clean blood and then encourage donations as often as possible.
Not to mention, if memory serves, gays weren't banned from giving blood because it would taint the supply. They put the ban into place because they had thousands of gay men donating blood as way of getting a free AIDS test. Red Cross rules said that they had to call someone who tested positive.
written by Sequel , March 04, 2010
It would be nice to hear Red Cross's take.
Is it because of a statistical incidence of too many diseases make the population too difficult screen?
Let's say there is 1 in 1000 chance that AIDS or some other malady gets missed. That would make the Red Cross fully justified in declining donations from the suspect population.
written by Sequel , March 04, 2010
On the other hand if the policy is just an artifact from the old days, they probably should scrap it.
written by Odin , March 04, 2010
"Men who have sex with men are 60 times more likely to be HIV-infected than the general population," said Karen Riley, an FDA spokesperson. "It becomes very sensitive at a high school level when a child is turned away, but the policy is in place for the protection of the blood supply."
Political correctness shouldn't trump public safety. Trusting tests and human integrity is risky enough without subjecting the blood supply to unnecessary risks. This seems to be another example of the entitlement mentality run amok, responsibility be damned.
It's stupidly tone-deaf for gay men to whine about having their homosexuality stigmatized given the role of homosexual sex in spreading AIDS. Do they really want to remind everybody about the last time the blood supply was contaminated and people (including children) who got transfusions died of AIDS?
written by Harlan , March 04, 2010
I've had sex with more 'unclean' women than I can count...NO TEST FOR ME...if on the odd chance one had been a he-she upon later disclosure, OOPS, testing/prohibitions. If no he/she evidence, TRANSFUSE AWAY!!! Trust me, my blood is much more potentially harmful given my hetero ways. I'm not speaking for all Omnisexuals, but believe-you-me...them's some dirty whores out there...did I mention that some were HOT?! Still, hot does not = clean...
written by Harlan , March 04, 2010
there was this tire/tobacco model that I shared the graces of her comfort for a short stretch....a fine package but a dirty crotch was she....
written by Sequel , March 04, 2010
It's very difficult to catch AIDS. Almost all sexual practices are not high risk.
There are 2 ways that are easy to catch it:
Direct to the blood. Contaminated needles and blood products.
Takin it up da chute.
Bottom line- don't shoot drugs, and don't play catcher.
written by Jonny , March 05, 2010
THe military with service in Europe ban is in effect longer than 1985, I'm the proof. I got there in 1990 I left in 1992. I am banned.
written by bikebubba , March 05, 2010
The math is pretty simple. There are somewhere between 2-3 million adult homosexual males, and they amount to about 4-500,000 of the million cases of HIV infection. Their infection rate is literally 500 times that of the population that is not homosexual, does not use IV drugs, and does not participate in prostitution.
With an infection rate of 12-25%, the test had better be pretty darned good to prevent subsequent infection. Keep.The.Ban.
written by TomC , March 05, 2010
This is a question for the blood banks and the CDC, not the politicians in Washington. Especially not the pandering John Kerry. Exactly what we do not need is more legislation on regulation from Washington.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 05, 2010
I really didn't have an opinion either way. The article was biased, of course, and J F'in Kerry is a massive asshole, but that made the issue more interesting to discuss. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Given what has been presented here, especially the military ban and the infection rates, I'd say we should keep the ban.
If more healthy heterosexuals donated this wouldn't be an issue. In an ideal world, there would be more blood available that needed and the Red Cross could be even more picky.
Hopefully synthetic blood will soon replace transfusions and this issue will really drop in importance.
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
