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

#91    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:25 PM

View PostMyles, on 11 December 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

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.

I used a purposely ridiculous solution to show how hard and ridiculous it would be to guarantee blood would be disease free to save money from doing the tests. Surely if money is all that matters, making a population with 0% risk of having the diseases are even more preferable than the standard population. And if you want to ensure that you have a group like that, you have to go to extreme lengths to do so.

If I had that choice I'd simply flip a coin or something similar. Why? Well several reasons. The first one is simply lack of information. Only the sexuality of the groups is given, but you're not telling me how many (if any) are drug users. Also there's no information on how many pratice safe sex. And to finish up, there's the simple thing in geoup A's statement. that they 'say' they are straight. They could simply lie. As such there could be just as many high risk people in group A and the people that are classed as high risk in group B could be taking all the precuations and be perfectly clean.

And, of cause, as with any statistic, in practice it becomes rather meaningless. Gay people may be more likely to have those disease, but that doesn't instantly mean that any random group is going to abide by the statistics. By the same token just because straight people are a 'lower risk' does not mean that those in either group will have less instances of the diseases showing.

So like I said, I'd be as happy choosing either group and I'd not make a snap judgement (as you have) unless I had more facts. Like you say, the ideal is doing both groups if you have the resources.

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."

#92    Myles

Myles

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,261 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:31 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

I used a purposely ridiculous solution to show how hard and ridiculous it would be to guarantee blood would be disease free to save money from doing the tests. Surely if money is all that matters, making a population with 0% risk of having the diseases are even more preferable than the standard population. And if you want to ensure that you have a group like that, you have to go to extreme lengths to do so.

If I had that choice I'd simply flip a coin or something similar. Why? Well several reasons. The first one is simply lack of information. Only the sexuality of the groups is given, but you're not telling me how many (if any) are drug users. Also there's no information on how many pratice safe sex. And to finish up, there's the simple thing in geoup A's statement. that they 'say' they are straight. They could simply lie. As such there could be just as many high risk people in group A and the people that are classed as high risk in group B could be taking all the precuations and be perfectly clean.

And, of cause, as with any statistic, in practice it becomes rather meaningless. Gay people may be more likely to have those disease, but that doesn't instantly mean that any random group is going to abide by the statistics. By the same token just because straight people are a 'lower risk' does not mean that those in either group will have less instances of the diseases showing.

So like I said, I'd be as happy choosing either group and I'd not make a snap judgement (as you have) unless I had more facts. Like you say, the ideal is doing both groups if you have the resources.

Then you would fail.


#93    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:36 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

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.

I'm not being hyper sensitive. Yes, trust and honesty is hoped. The key word being hoped. sure most people will be honest, but there's no guarantee that everyone will be. Just because I'd want the doors'wide ope' doors not mean i'm not concerned with getting as much clean blood or efficiancy. Since I'd be open to all gay AND straight, I'd not magically get merely get 1-3 bags of good blood to 10 of yours. Since most donors would be straight (statstically since most people are straight) the difference wouldn't be anywhere near as vast as that.

I think that shows the differnce between are cultures. Here in the uk, blood donating is optional. People that do it do so willingly and you know what they get afterwards? A cup of tea and a biscuit (if they choose). No one here is paid for their blood, so people who give it generally don't have the reasoning to lie that people there do. As such no money is 'wasted' by being given to those that choose to donate so any money that would be used for such a thing can go where it's needed. Like you say, into research.

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."

#94    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:39 PM

View PostMyles, on 11 December 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

Then you would fail.

Ah of course! you say so, so of course I'd fail, how silly of me to forget that sucess and failure is merely at the whims of you who gives an example with only one piece of information.

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."

#95    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,410 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:



I'm not being hyper sensitive. Yes, trust and honesty is hoped. The key word being hoped. sure most people will be honest, but there's no guarantee that everyone will be. Just because I'd want the doors'wide ope' doors not mean i'm not concerned with getting as much clean blood or efficiancy. Since I'd be open to all gay AND straight, I'd not magically get merely get 1-3 bags of good blood to 10 of yours. Since most donors would be straight (statstically since most people are straight) the difference wouldn't be anywhere near as vast as that.

I think that shows the differnce between are cultures. Here in the uk, blood donating is optional. People that do it do so willingly and you know what they get afterwards? A cup of tea and a biscuit (if they choose). No one here is paid for their blood, so people who give it generally don't have the reasoning to lie that people there do. As such no money is 'wasted' by being given to those that choose to donate so any money that would be used for such a thing can go where it's needed. Like you say, into research.
Well we are doomed to not agree but a couple things about the above: If you are the first to open a purely non-discriminatory donation center you can bet that you'll be disproportionally flooded with groups that haven't been allowed to donate previously. So you might not get as much good blood as you believe.
Second, blood donation is purely optional here too. As for receiving payment, that's isn't too common and I think occurs during blood drives when there are advertised shortages. There may be clinics around that pay but I don't think it's much of a concern as far as liars go.

Posted Image

#96    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,846 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

View PostKyle98632, on 10 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

As a gay man I do understand why we are not allowed to give blood. Fact is, the gay men population has far higher rates of different diseases, and I think it is just downright safer to weed out groups of people who are far more likely to have issues.
This is the very best post on this thread... I think your honesty far outweighs any other comment here, "you the Man!!!

Nobody else should say anything, because you do not have the real info to say anything :no:

Edited by keithisco, 11 December 2012 - 08:50 PM.


#97    Myles

Myles

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,261 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Ah of course! you say so, so of course I'd fail, how silly of me to forget that sucess and failure is merely at the whims of you who gives an example with only one piece of information.

Don't get me wrong, Ideally I would like to see everyone with the option of giving blood.   But if resources are low, I want them to take the groups with the highest percentage of success.   We know there are exceptions, but you must use the statistics.   The stats should also be updated periodically.


#98    with bells on

with bells on

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

haven't the majority of people, gay and straight, on this thread agreed why people in high risk categories aren't allowed to give blood?? all anyone is saying beyond that is the laws need to be reevaluated, as its not the 1980's anymore, people having blood transfusions are not getting HIV infected blood, every single person that donates blood, whether they are Jenny Christian from Smalltown, USA , are being tested for HIV and other infections, every single blood donation has to be perceived as having HIV, so this cost/economic issue people are running with is void..

the rules in these banks should be anyone who is promiscuous should be on the high risk category.. i know just as many hetro men that screw everything in sight, and they are married with kids, and dont wear condoms sometimes, and i bet if they were to go to a blood bank they would lie about it.. just like anyone in little towns would lie about what they get up to.. so you have a percentage of high risk people already donating blood across our countries.. gay men get tested regularly, if they aren't being promiscuous and are in a monogamous relationship why cant they give blood??? thats the question being posed here with the OPoster..


#99    with bells on

with bells on

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:52 PM

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



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.

so i take it you don't donate sperm? lmfao..




#100    Purplos

Purplos

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,552 posts
  • Joined:03 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fighting ennui in suburban NJ

  • Everything important is infinite.

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:06 AM

Quote

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

That has absolutely nothing with what I posted. lol
I wasn't arguing against testing blood.

Good grief.

Embrace the impossible.

#101    Purplos

Purplos

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,552 posts
  • Joined:03 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fighting ennui in suburban NJ

  • Everything important is infinite.

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:38 AM

Quote

every single person that donates blood are being tested for HIV and other infections, every single blood donation has to be perceived as having HIV, so this cost/economic issue people are running with is void..

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void.  You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right?  The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

Embrace the impossible.

#102    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,410 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:53 AM

View PostPurplos, on 12 December 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void.  You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right?  The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.
Please stop making sense. This isn't about anything but political correctness to these guys. If somebody can't dispute the STD statistics between when this law was written and the stats of today then there really is no argument because me, purplos and everybody else who gets the point have won this argument. It's about economics. If you can't dispute the stats then it's about political correctness and that's that.

Posted Image

#103    with bells on

with bells on

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:54 AM

View PostPurplos, on 12 December 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:



Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void.  You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right?  The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

In Australia no one is payed for donating blood.. people do it, because its a good thing to do for others..

recently a good friend of mine had severe bleeding from her "lady parts", and it wasnt that time of the month.. she called an ambulance, they rushed her to hospital, gave her blood transfusions, kept her in hosiptal for two days, she had lost a lot of blood, had the best doctors, and her bill for all that, because she doesnt have health insurance was $0.00 dollars.. so we dont get lumped with huge blood transfusion bills here.. im sorry your healthcare system is for profit and not for the people...

having wasted blood donations is factored into the whole scenario of any blood bank, i would assume.. im not saying they should open up the donations to every high risk person, clearly that would factor into a lot of wasted blood and money,time etc (like what you are saying) im just saying open it up to the low risk people in that group.. so there shouldnt be any more "wasted" donations than there already is at the moment, in any bank.. so the economic issue is void, meaning its would be the same stats, as it already is..


#104    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:18 AM

View PostPurplos, on 12 December 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Every single unit of blood is tested, yes, but if you end up with a higher percentage of unusable, infected blood, they lose money. The economic issue is absolutely not void.  You do realize people have to pay for the blood they get in transfusions in hospitals right?  The people taking, testing, giving blood get paid... If more blood tests are wasted... meaning they have no blood to sell at the end... then it's wasted money.

I find the American healthcare system to be rather odd in that it's all about money, not about the people.

A bit of sense is required. I think, because a lot of you aren't getting what I mean, but I'll cover that in a second.

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 12 December 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Please stop making sense. This isn't about anything but political correctness to these guys. If somebody can't dispute the STD statistics between when this law was written and the stats of today then there really is no argument because me, purplos and everybody else who gets the point have won this argument. It's about economics. If you can't dispute the stats then it's about political correctness and that's that.

It is NOT about political correctness.

Lets think about this rationally. Most blood comes from straight people regardless of the law, this is fact, by simple virtue of most of the population being straight..Even if the laws was to change you'd still get most of the blood from straight people.

From an economic perspective, it wouldn't change things as much as you make out. The only way it would change things as negatively as you say would be if the ban was full reversed (ie that only gay people's blood was used and not straight people). Since you'd still have most of the blood coming from a 'low risk' source, the economic issue because somewhat moot.

Blood is also wasted regardless. Some is just not used and some is disgarded anyway as waste after testing. However, overall most is not wasted and those that are? Well it's for a good reason.

Now, how about you listen instead of jumping to poitical correctness of issues of getting offended every five seconds. Are gay people a higher risk group than straight people? According to the stats, yes. Note that I have not once disputed that. What I am disputing is that some gay people are careful and do things safely to ensure they dont run the risk of infection. Therefore the law is unfair to those that do things safely.

Now if you look at straight people, they can do unsafe practises too and have sex with multiple partners and all manner of other things and there's nothing held against them. That, to me, is problematic and is what creates a double standard. A gay person that knows their blood is clean can't give blood, with a straight person that sleeps around (and thus has a higher risk of infection) can.

If you want a ban in place, then make it for those that sleep around and don't engage in safe sex.

The only thing that should matter is that the blood is clean, not if it comes from a gay or straight person.

Edited by shadowhive, 12 December 2012 - 03:22 AM.

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."

#105    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,410 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:51 AM

Whatever man, I have listened. I don't care if there is a ban or not or who blood comes from so long as it's clean. I never even knew anything about this stupid thing before last night. I simply understand the reasoning behind it and have made a good case explaining just that. No wonder we broke away from you guys. You're a pushy bunch.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users