Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Gay men cannot donate blood or sperm

blood sperm gay

  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#76    King Fluffs

King Fluffs

    The Resident Misanthrope

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • Shadows protect my angel in white...

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:59 PM

I have an uncle who's homosexual and he's still allowed to donate his blood.


#77    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,958 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:11 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Sure, but if straight people are 5 times less likely to be infected, statistically, and make up the vast majority of blood donors...Well the argument has been made. Try this; You open a mobile blood donation business. You only have so much staff and resources to conduct withdrawls and testing. Sensibly, you only accept blood from people that meet certain criteria because you need to make sure you get as much acceptable blood as possible. Suddenly, a group of people wants to give whom science has proven to be 5 times more likely to carry an STD than anyone who actually meets your criteria. Their feelings are hurt. There is a possibility that you may receive some good blood from the group but statistics tell you that your limited staff and resources should really be focusing on where the good blood is most likely to be found but instead, you cave in. Now you are paying people to sift through bad batches and nobody is going to pay you for those bad batches. Then you have to cut some staff because you can't afford them and so on until you realize it doesn't make sense economically or time wise to deal with so much waste and in the health field, time and money is everything in relation to quality care.
Or, you can find a way to blame this on capitalism and homophobia. Me? I'd rather see logic. Liberalism and political correctness has no place in logic and economics. Countries and such things can not be run on feelings. It hinders production and just plain gets in the way.

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?

View PostPurplos, on 11 December 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

44 / 100 = unusable blood x $10.00 (arbitrary number) per test = $ 440.00 out of $1000.00 wasted

1 /100 = unusable blood x $10.00 per test = $10.00 out of $1000.00 wasted.

Which makes more sense?

THAT is the issue. Not the medical community being big meanies to gay men.

I think people that don't know this kinda thing is ruled by PROFIT are just a wee bit silly.

I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#78    glorybebe

glorybebe

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,724 posts
  • Joined:24 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:21 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?



I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

:tu: I agree, but you and I aren't holding the purse strings.

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!

#79    JGirl

JGirl

    Pajama Goddess

  • Member
  • 9,016 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:British Columbia Canada

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:31 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?



I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.
in the usa, if i'm not mistaken, you can sell your blood. so yeah i can see some people who know they're infected with something choosing to give the blood anyway - figuring they're probably testing it anyhow - which they should be.
i know in canada they test all the blood regardless.


#80    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:33 PM

View Postmfrmboy, on 10 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Why in this day and age are gay and bisexual men prohibited from donating blood and sperm.

Heterosexuals are just as likely to contract and spread HIV or Hepatitis as anyone else.

With blood supplies being so low and rare blood types being in such high demand I find it absurd that gay and bisexual men are turned away.

The blood is tested before it is used so I don't understand why, makes no sense.

When the woman goes to the man porridge clinic I dont think she has a gay child in mind.

She'll want a tall, handsome, intelligent mans man's sperm.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 11 December 2012 - 07:55 PM.


#81    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,741 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:



The test to make sure the blood is not 'tainted' is done regardless (or at least should be). Staight people may be less likely, but unless they suddenly become 100% immune, the blood should still be tested regardless.

I think too much is said of it being simply about 'feelings being hurt'. That belittles the whole thing personally. Some gay people that KNOW they are clean, that have had the revelent tests or are in monogamous relationships, should be able to donate the same as monogamous hetrosexuals. Indeed, if you're so worried about infection, only people in monogamous relationships (or better, celibate) should be the only ones to donate.

Now your arguement has a secondary problem. Currently straight people give blood. Allowing gay people will not negate the vast amount of straight people donating and it certainly wouldn't make a big enough dent to damage the buisness you refer to.

People that know they have a disease, any disease, should have the common sense not to donate. My mum's donated for years, but if she so much as gets a cold she doesn't even consider it. Are people over there really so dumb they'd donate even if they had infectuous diseases?



I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.
Hey I'm just arguing why the rule is in place. I don't care where it comes from so long as it's checked and clean. It's about profit vs loss and only one of them is good for any business. That ain't my fault. That's just what makes the world go round. And yes, people over here are that dumb and people over here also may not be aware of what they carry and people over here who need money so bad they have to sell their blood just might lie at the expense of someone's profit or life for ten dollars. People have killed and died for less. As I said before, go open your own donation center and run it how you like. If you care to succeed and continue to help people you just might take advantage of cost saving measures to ensure just that.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 11 December 2012 - 07:42 PM.

Posted Image

#82    Myles

Myles

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,598 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:46 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:


I don't see a test that could save someone's life as being a 'waste'.

It is a waste if you could avoid it.   Not all drug users are HIV positive, but I think there is a high enough % to avoid that group.
Of course anyone can withhold info.    If they do, than so be it.   There are always exceptions.


#83    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,958 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:48 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 11 December 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

What the woman goes to the man porridge clinic I dont think she has a gay child in mind.

She'll want a tall, handsome, intelligent mans man's sperm.

Gay men can be tall, handsome and intelligent.

Also the idea that gay parents produce gay children has been proved as nosense. The reverse (that straight people only produce straight children) obviously doesn't work that way either.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#84    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,958 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:50 PM

View PostMyles, on 11 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

It is a waste if you could avoid it.   Not all drug users are HIV positive, but I think there is a high enough % to avoid that group.
Of course anyone can withhold info. If they do, than so be it.   There are always exceptions.

If you want to avoid any waste, here's what you do. Get people of every blood type, that haven't had sex (any sex) and aren't drug users (or any other risk group). Seal them in a quarantined building and only use their blood. Ta da! All money that would be 'wasted' on tests is suddenly not required.

Sounds ridiculous, but if money is all that matters, that's what should be done.

Edited by shadowhive, 11 December 2012 - 07:51 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#85    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,958 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:57 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Hey I'm just arguing why the rule is in place. I don't care where it comes from so long as it's checked and clean. It's about profit vs loss and only one of them is good for any business. That ain't my fault. That's just what makes the world go round. And yes, people over here are that dumb and people over here also may not be aware of what they carry and people over here who need money so bad they have to sell their blood just might lie at the expense of someone's profit or life for ten dollars. People have killed and died for less. As I said before, go open your own donation center and run it how you like. If you care to succeed and continue to help people you just might take advantage of cost saving measures to ensure just that.

Reread what you've just said. You've basically said why the ban is meaingless. Any high risk group can lie. Any high risk group can do it just for the money.All what you're saying is not just that people can get around the ban on high risk groups but they do and do so knowingly. And, because ANYONE gay or straight is capable of doing those things, the blood testing has to be in place with the ban or without.

If I had my own mobile blood donation buisness, the most important thing for me is to get as many people that are willing as possible. Since the blood is (rightfully) screened regardless, in the long run it doesn't matter. I'd not use the ban as a threat or excuse to fire people left and right, nor would I use it as an excuse to cut corners to save a few bucks. The important thing, at the end of the day, isn't the money but the people's lives that would be saved with the blood. Pity that people seem to forget that.

Edited by shadowhive, 11 December 2012 - 07:58 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#86    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,741 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:01 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:



If you want to avoid any waste, here's what you do. Get people of every blood type, that haven't had sex (any sex) and aren't drug users (or any other risk group). Seal them in a quarantined building and only use their blood. Ta da! All money that would be 'wasted' on tests is suddenly not required.

Sounds ridiculous, but if money is all that matters, that's what should be done.
No, your argument sounds ridiculous. You just don't know, no you don't care how a business runs so long as you aren't offended by it. Blood donation is a very important thing and shouldn't be based on special group feelings. It's not the traditional type of business that strives on getting a diverse demographic. It strives on getting the right demographic.

Posted Image

#87    Myles

Myles

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,598 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:07 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

If you want to avoid any waste, here's what you do. Get people of every blood type, that haven't had sex (any sex) and aren't drug users (or any other risk group). Seal them in a quarantined building and only use their blood. Ta da! All money that would be 'wasted' on tests is suddenly not required.

Sounds ridiculous, but if money is all that matters, that's what should be done.

That's your solution?    Are you 10?
If you only had resources to take blood from 100 people, would you choose:
Group A - 100 people who say they are straight
or
Broup B - 100 people including 20% who say they are gay

Keep in mind that you have valid statistics they show that a higher % of homosexual donations fail the screenings.

The answer is obviously Group A.    Of course if the resources could be procured, both groups should be used.


#88    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,958 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:11 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

No, your argument sounds ridiculous. You just don't know, no you don't care how a business runs so long as you aren't offended by it. Blood donation is a very important thing and shouldn't be based on special group feelings. It's not the traditional type of business that strives on getting a diverse demographic. It strives on getting the right demographic.

It needs to get a diverse demographic. There are many different blood groups out there and, for the rare ones, there's the risk of shortages when it's required. Again, it's not about offending a group, it's about getting as much blood as possible to save lives. The only thing that should matter is if that blood is diseased or not. If that truly is what matters than everyone with good blood should be able to donate unless it becomes diseased.

Are there people that have a high risk of getting those diseases? Yes, but a higher risk isn't the same as a guarantee. And, since people can lie anyway (or simply not know they have it) and since everyone can get those diseases, blood tests and fail safes have to be in place regardless.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#89    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,741 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:19 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:



Reread what you've just said. You've basically said why the ban is meaingless. Any high risk group can lie. Any high risk group can do it just for the money.All what you're saying is not just that people can get around the ban on high risk groups but they do and do so knowingly. And, because ANYONE gay or straight is capable of doing those things, the blood testing has to be in place with the ban or without.

If I had my own mobile blood donation buisness, the most important thing for me is to get as many people that are willing as possible. Since the blood is (rightfully) screened regardless, in the long run it doesn't matter. I'd not use the ban as a threat or excuse to fire people left and right, nor would I use it as an excuse to cut corners to save a few bucks. The important thing, at the end of the day, isn't the money but the people's lives that would be saved with the blood. Pity that people seem to forget that.
You're just hyper sensitive. First off, a lot of trust and honesty is hoped for by donors. Lying is selfish and most people won't. Just because they can lie doesn't mean the doors should be wide open. If I had a blood donation business the most important thing for me would be to get as much clean blood as quickly and efficiently as possible and I'll bet my business against yours that I'd destroy you in efficiency, clients(hospitals, doctors) gained and profits made. I'll get ten bags of good blood to your 1-3. Your position may lye in nobility but I'll be helping a lot more people a lot longer than you will be and your legacy will be the guy who briefly helped a few people until he couldn't afford it any longer because he thinks profiling is mean.
Too bad, so sad but money is THEE driving force behind everything. Without it, healthcare as we know it wouldn't exist and doctors would still be performing lobotomies on gays and crazies. Money=funding=research. Kindness and willingness to help is only part of it.

Posted Image

#90    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,741 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:24 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:



It needs to get a diverse demographic. There are many different blood groups out there and, for the rare ones, there's the risk of shortages when it's required. Again, it's not about offending a group, it's about getting as much blood as possible to save lives. The only thing that should matter is if that blood is diseased or not. If that truly is what matters than everyone with good blood should be able to donate unless it becomes diseased.

Are there people that have a high risk of getting those diseases? Yes, but a higher risk isn't the same as a guarantee. And, since people can lie anyway (or simply not know they have it) and since everyone can get those diseases, blood tests and fail safes have to be in place regardless.
Well, if it's not about offending anyone then efficiency must be the goal. I know there are shortages of blood at times but even when there is the last thing people in need of blood need is blood donation centers wasting time.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users