116 replies to this topic

[Cassea]

You think doctors.  Are doing this.  Because they think male sex is gross?  Do you realize.  That even accepting the donation.  Can put a technician at risk.  Not just the recipient of the blood.  If I asked you to test.   A batch of blood.  Batch A is from the homosexual community.   Batch B is from the hetero community.  You are saying. Honestly.  You wouldn't prefer not to have to handle blood. That had a 44% higher chance of having HIV?

[with bells on]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

You think doctors.  Are doing this.  Because they think male sex is gross?  Do you realize.  That even accepting the donation.  Can put a technician at risk.  Not just the recipient of the blood.  If I asked you to test.   A batch of blood.  Batch A is from the homosexual community.   Batch B is from the hetero community.  You are saying. Honestly.  You wouldn't prefer not to have to handle blood. That had a 44% higher chance of having HIV?

see, this is where you do come across as having an underlining issue with gays.. its very subtle.. but noticeable..

anyone handling blood is safe, regardless if they are using "gay" blood or "hetro" blood.. its not like they can catch it by looking at it.. even if they did actually touch the blood, they wont catch HIV, unless they have an open cut on their hand.. and even then its only a risk..

[Cassea]

You are being dishonest and not answering the question.    It's got nothing to do with homosexuality.  It has to do with the chance of infection.  Each here has focused on the recipient of the transfusion.  But to get to that point many people are involved prior.  From the person receiving the donation at the center all the way to the technicians.  

Would you rather handle blood that had a 44% higher chance of being infected with HIV.  Yes or no.  Be honest.   Otherwise this is just a drama.

[JGirl]

with bells on, on 11 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

anyone handling blood is safe, regardless if they are using "gay" blood or "hetro" blood.. its not like they can catch it by looking at it.. even if they did actually touch the blood, they wont catch HIV, unless they have an open cut on their hand.. and even then its only a risk..

i agree and i would also add that the chosen field of work has it's obvious hazzards from the onset with blood being the main event. ambulannce workers, police officers, nurses, doctors, lab techs...all of them work with potential carriers of many highly contagious diseases and they understand the risk. if they aren't willing to handle the infected blood they should be working in another field. they don't get to cherry pick their cases.

Edited by JGirl, 11 December 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[Cassea]

In this case they do.

[JGirl]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

In this case they do.

are you suggesting that a lab technician can refuse to do a test on a sample that is potentially hiv infected? because where i live you would be out of a job right quick

[Cassea]

No I am not.  I am saying there is a reason the blood was banned.  That has nothing to do with being gay. And everything to do with risk.

You also avoided answering the direct question.  Would you rather handle blood that had a 44% higher risk of having HIV.  Yes or no.  If you say you don't care etc.  I think you are not being honest.  It's not just about the safety of the recipient,  Or the feelings of a gay person. Ex those who are not allowed to donate. Because of Mad Cow.

Edited by Cassea, 11 December 2012 - 06:20 AM.

[JGirl]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

No I am not.  I am saying there is a reason the blood was banned.  That has nothing to do with being gay. And everything to do with risk.

You also avoided answering the direct question.  Would you rather handle blood that had a 44% higher risk of having HIV.  Yes or no.  If you say you don't care etc.  I think you are not being honest.  It's not just about the safety of the recipient,  Or the feelings of a gay person. Ex those who are not allowed to donate. Because of Mad Cow.

i made no comment about you being homophobic or it being a gay issue with you and this is why i haven't commented to your posts on it.
i get that it's about the risk for you. i really don't think you are against gay people. if anything i think you are undereducated about the actual risks involved.
i would handle hiv blood,yes. i do care about the risk but i would still do it if i had to. i live around someone with hiv on a regular basis (my partner's brother has aids) and i've learned a lot over the years.
i don't agree that you have all that much to worry about, but then i am not you so i can't say how you should feel about getting blood from a source you are unsure of.
my sis had her own blood taken before a known scheduled surgery because she didn't want to take the chance. this was after the big hiv tainted blood issues.

[with bells on]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

You are being dishonest and not answering the question.    It's got nothing to do with homosexuality.  It has to do with the chance of infection.  Each here has focused on the recipient of the transfusion.  But to get to that point many people are involved prior.  From the person receiving the donation at the center all the way to the technicians.  

Would you rather handle blood that had a 44% higher chance of being infected with HIV.  Yes or no.  Be honest.   Otherwise this is just a drama.

Cassea, i do not have to answer silly questions, there is nothing dishonest about it.. neither does anyone else here..

NO.. (btw, that was not me screaming at you).. i wouldnt mind handling gay blood..  its not like i dab my finger in it and rub it in my gums.. one would have to assume all blood being treated is infected with something, with zero distinction being made whether it is gay or straight.. it doesnt matter who's blood it is..

[Cassea]

You keep changing it.   I didn't ask you if you'd mind handling gay blood.  I asked you if you would mind handling blood that had a 44% higher chance. Of having HIV.  You keep dodging the directness.  And turning it to a gay issue.  It isn't.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Being a son of a phlebotomist. I can say at any given time there are samples that are HIV positive and hepatitis a b c. Positive in any blood bank. Its par for course. To say you wouldn't handle it simply means that job is not for you. There is very little risk handling the blood in its contained state and even those who draw learn in school not to poke yourself with the needle your using. Maybe some people are scared and that's fine but with a little more education you may find that risk is minimal at best. Some one who is gay should not be denied the ability to potentially save lives. That's prejudice no matter how you justify it.

[with bells on]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

You keep changing it.   I didn't ask you if you'd mind handling gay blood.  I asked you if you would mind handling blood that had a 44% higher chance. Of having HIV.  You keep dodging the directness.  And turning it to a gay issue.  It isn't.

I am not dodging your question, thank you..

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

If I asked you to test.   A batch of blood.  Batch A is from the homosexual community.   Batch B is from the hetero community.  You are saying. Honestly.  You wouldn't prefer not to have to handle blood. That had a 44% higher chance of having HIV?

are you forgetting what you are saying??? you are making this about being gay blood and hetro blood.. and then saying you aren't.. make up your mind, Cassea..

yes, so the blood, you mention with 44% higher chance of HIV is gay blood..

as i have stated i dont care if its HIV infected blood, all blood would have to be treated as having some type of infection.. so i couldnt care less if the blood i treated had hep C or any type of infection, cause it makes little difference.. you clearly have an issue with it, so i would recommend that you stay away from any profession that involves blood..

pass me the head ache pills..

[acidhead]

All blood should be treated equally regardless of sexual preference.

Let the market decide.  Witness the results.

[Simbi Laveau]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

You are being dishonest and not answering the question.    It's got nothing to do with homosexuality.  It has to do with the chance of infection.  Each here has focused on the recipient of the transfusion.  But to get to that point many people are involved prior.  From the person receiving the donation at the center all the way to the technicians.  

Would you rather handle blood that had a 44% higher chance of being infected with HIV.  Yes or no.  Be honest.   Otherwise this is just a drama.

I was a paramedic. I was in jeopardy of being splashed ,stuck or spewed on ,by unknown statused people,daily .
On some occasions we knew they were HIV ,but most of the time,we didn't.
Every medical professional ,worldwide ,takes this risk ,day to day,as we cannot tell just by looking at someone,their status for numerous blood borne pathogens.
So no one says gosh,I can only treat this person,and handle their blood ,unless they have only a 20% chance of infection .
It's not realistic ,and is the same if you choose to have a sexual relationship with someone.
,

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 11 December 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[F3SS]

Cassea, you've been pulled into a strawman argument and are going to be psychoanalyzed by people who are angry at you for explaining the reasoning behind a rule you didn't write. There is nothing you can do to stop it except become overly politically correct and denounce anything that says no to a special interest group even if that means you're denouncing a common sense rule for the safety of citizens everywhere.
Now, I've yet to see anyone disprove the 44% statistic. So while the intention for giving blood is noble the arguement to let a certain special interest group give blood that has a 44% chance of being tainted or discarded or by some off chance slip through the cracks(is that impossible?)  thereby literally wasting time and resources just so your feelings aren't hurt is pretty selfish in itself. Just because blood testing procedures are top notch these days doesn't mean time and money has to be wasted just to be PC when that time and money can be going to better things like finding statistically better blood. Isn't everybody all about lowering healthcare costs these days? The first gay president is, right?