Poll: Ban in the US on donating blood if you are gay

Scroll to see replies

What if it was the blood of a bisexual man?

Would your body just... explode? :rolleyes:

It depends on the sexual orientation of the blood at any one time. My body could interact with it at the point the blood yells for homosexual acts or vice versa.

Reply 41

james22

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

Actually 70%-90% of people who are infected with HIV experience symptoms within 10 days and then symptoms disappear after two to three weeks this is the first stage. The the second stage of HIV has no symptoms and can last up to ten years meaning a person who has waited a year without sex is no more likely to show symptoms than someone who has waited 10. So you are wrong (again).

You may be good at Maths but you're no Biologist.

http://www.hivaware.org.uk/do-i-have-hiv/signs-and-symptoms.php

Where do you get the bold bit from? The source you linked just said that it is possible to go 10 years without symptoms, not that it is just a likely as going 1 year without them. I'm going to need a source for what you just said.

Reply 42

Another

Original post by james22

Someone who has not had sex in a year but has HIV is far more likely to be showing syptoms. Someone who has had sex within a year could have it without knowing far more easily.

Surely that's going under the assumption of that every gay person has HIV. As soon as they have sex. Spontaneously. Honestly, if this isn't treating a class of people as second class citizens, I don't know what is.

Original post by The Juan

Id rather die yes. And anyways my body would reject it as I don't swing that way.

It's okay, I would never accept blood from a black man either.

Reply 43

james22

Original post by Another

If it was using that assumption then no gay people would be allowed to donate blood, so not sure why you think that.

I have never said that I agree with the law (nor have I said that I disagree), I'm just pointing out that there is valid reasoning for it.

Reply 44

Another

Original post by james22

That's the point of the thread. Gay people WEREN'T allowed to donate blood until 2011 in the UK, 2013 in Canada, and I'm willing to bet it's still illegal in some American states.

Reply 45

The Juan

Original post by Another

Neither would I, I have strict criteria for my blood supply

Reply 46

Viceroy

Original post by The Juan

It depends on the sexual orientation of the blood at any one time. My body could interact with it at the point the blood yells for homosexual acts or vice versa.

Blood doesn't have a sexual orientation.

Original post by Another

It's okay, I would never accept blood from a black man either.

...or a race.

Reply 47

Schrödingers Cat

Original post by james22

Sorry I'm taking most of this knowledge from my sister who studies biology at uni, here's a source though:

http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/just-diagnosed-with-hiv-aids/hiv-in-your-body/stages-of-hiv/

The asymptomatic stage last an average of 10 years, some go through it faster but it's unlikely that after only a year of HIV infection that symptoms will show.

If the law really wanted to be stringent, 11 years without sex would have to in place which is just ridiculous.

Reply 48

james22

Original post by Another

That's the point of the thread. Gay people WEREN'T allowed to donate blood until 2011 in the UK, 2013 in Canada, and I'm willing to bet it's still illegal in some American states.

There is still logic to it though, gay people are more likely to have HIV than straight people. The downsides do vastly outweigh the upsides though.

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

This still conforms with what I said, though the probabilities are lower than I expected. My original post still seems valid.

Reply 49

Olderandwiser23

Original post by AdamskiUK

Really? Homosexuality is practised, without prejudice, in over 1500 species. There is only discrimination in ONE species.

Higher order thought processes don't create prejudice, religion (and therefore culture, because they are essentially intertwined at the moment, especially in Abrahamic religions) does.

Words right outta my mouth - why does a 1-year celibacy limit make ANY sense?

A year is over kill but I think the idea is as the HIV test used on blood donations is only effective on those who have been exposed to HIV in the past 12 weeks. So just testing blood to see if it's positive or negative then using it isn't quite effective. A person could have contracted HIV in the past 12
Weeks and the test would be negative.

This OfCourse also applies to heterosexuals, the reasons they're exempt is due to risk assessment

Reply 50

Hype en Ecosse

Original post by Another

So, how does this work? After not having sex for a year your HIV expires or what?

Genuinely speechless, never thought a law like this could ever exist :lolwut:

This is how it works in the UK. HIV testing has a long window period. It's not because people think HIV expires after a year. The idea is that the risk/benefit doesn't pay off. It's believed that the additional x% of blood donations that would be received do not outweigh the risk of HIV transmission.

Original post by Olderandwiser23

This OfCourse also applies to heterosexuals, the reasons they're exempt is due to risk assessment

Well, no, heterosexuals aren't exempt. A heterosexual who has sex with a prostitute, or who has sex with a man who has sex with men is placed under the same restrictions.

Original post by Schrödingers Cat

Nah, making it 11 years wouldn't be supported by evidence. The length of the restriction atm is based on the fact that our tests aren't very good at picking up the virus in the initial months following infection (I think it's up to ~5), and the committees have chosen to extend this to a year (due to the effect of outliers). All blood undergoes testing for BBVs: what you're worried about is your test missing one, and then infecting another person because you missed it!

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 51

Viceroy

Original post by Another

That's the point of the thread. Gay people WEREN'T allowed to donate blood until 2011 in the UK, 2013 in Canada, and I'm willing to bet it's still illegal in some American states.

As the title of the thread indicates, the OP is about a US ban (though similar bans/laws are also in place elsewhere), so, yes, these stipulations exist in America. It is not state-wide though, it is federal.

Reply 52

Another

Original post by Viceroy

Blood doesn't have a sexual orientation.

...or a race.

I'm certain he's trolling by now, no one can be that stupid.

Original post by james22

There is still logic to it though, gay people are more likely to have HIV than straight people. The downsides do vastly outweigh the upsides though.

1) 11 - 23% of gay people in a population have HIV. That's still a good 80% of blood bags we're effectively throwing away.

2) With the HIV screening systems we have now, you're more likely to get false positive results than false negative ones. I haven't seen a single case yet where someone contracted HIV through a blood bag (There's about a 50/50 split between Hetero and Homo people with HIV status. If a false negative was going to happen, it would have done so by now)

Reply 53

Olderandwiser23

Original post by Another

I'm certain he's trolling by now, no one can be that stupid.

1) 11 - 23% of gay people in a population have HIV. That's still a good 80% of blood bags we're effectively throwing away.

2) With the HIV screening systems we have now, you're more likely to get false positive results than false negative ones. I haven't seen a single case yet where someone contracted HIV through a blood bag (There's about a 50/50 split between Hetero and Homo people with HIV status. If a false negative was going to happen, it would have done so by now)

False positive are definitely not more likely.

Reply 54

james22

Original post by Another

Hence why the negatives vastly outweight the positives.

Reply 55

Another

Original post by Olderandwiser23

False positive are definitely not more likely.

From the first page of google:

The majority of microbiologically reactive tests on blood donations are false reactions. This is no reflection on the validity of the tests but an accepted aspect of all biological tests. (http://www.blood.co.uk/pdf/publications/blood_matters_19.pdf), 2006

According to the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH), conventional rapid POC tests are generally satisfactory for detection of uncomplicated HIV infection. However, they are slightly less sensitive than lab-based tests. In a population with low prevalence of HIV, they can lead to a high number of false positives - although all reactive tests are always tested again(so no incorrect diagnosis will ultimately be issued), 2011 http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Policy/2011/Oct-2011-Facts-Types-of-HIV-test.pdf

The positive predictive value is the number of persons correctly diagnosed as HIV-positive, divided by the total number of HIV-positive findings. In our example, we had 9900 'true positive' test results – infected persons who tested positive – and 9000 false positive results. The positive predictive value in this case is (9900)/(9900 + 9000), or 52.4%. In other words, when our hypothetical test was used in a population with 10% prevalence of HIV, nearly half of its positive results were false. http://www.aidsmap.com/Positive-and-negative-predictive-values/page/1322987/

Reply 56

Professor Purple

Voted no. I wouldnt want gay blood running through my veins.

Reply 57

Viceroy

Original post by Professor Purple

Voted no. I wouldnt want gay blood running through my veins.

Blood does not have a sexual orientation.

Reply 58

an_atheist

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

I respect the sentiment, but I don't think this has much to do with religion.

This has a fair amount to do with religion. The Abrahamic religions do not condone homosexuality, and so the problem of homosexuals not being able to give blood is a direct result of the massive influence Christianity has on global government. Islam is the same, they do not condone homosexuality.

Reply 59

LadyEcliptic

Well it is discriminatory because it really is saying that only gay men can have HIV.

I'm sure all blood that is donated is going to be tested for all forms of disease.

And I'm sure you won't catch "gay" from receiving their blood - if anything people should be grateful of others coming forward to donate blood when there is a shortage.