Can we discuss this (Page 3)

09-13-2010, 02:31 AM

boner7484

Originally Posted by secjay

I am not allowed to give blood in Australia because I lived in the UK for a short period during the 80’s.
And I have a lot of good clean healthy blood to give…
Discrimination!

Sanity returns to the thread. I am not allowed to give blood for exactly the same reason, in that I was born in the UK in 1981 (moved to aus in 1983 though).

Nor would I be able to if I had a tattoo in the last year, travelled to Iraq or any number of other reasons, of which there are many - Blood Donor Eligibility Criteria | Red Cross Blood Services

Originally Posted by a-unit

I would have thought that a simple (or complex, if necessary) blood test would be sufficient to protect the blood supply against anyone with contaminants in their blood, no matter their social or political status.

With regards to HIV, there is a period after contraction when you are infectious but tests will not show you have been infected. So exclusion of high risk sectors of the population is completely warranted.

So no, you are incorrect.

Plus it was not too long ago that thousands of hemophiliacs contracted HIV through tainted blood transfusions.

Last edited by boner7484 : 09-13-2010 at 02:40 AM.

09-13-2010, 03:04 AM

secjay

Originally Posted by boner7484

Sanity returns to the thread.

Name’s secjay: s-e-c-j-a-y :)

09-13-2010, 11:54 AM

northmiamitop

Originally Posted by equity4tt

You were the one that said that gay donors are prohibited from donating which means that they are for the purposes of donation gay first and then black. The gay is what prevents them from donating not the black therefore for the purposes of donating it is irrelevant that they are black. Repeating that you are as likely to get tainted blood from a black as from a gay does not make it true when the numbers say otherwise. Education is another issue and I don’t disagree with you on this point.

You’re missing the point entirely. You are fixated on the race aspect, not the statistics, so ignore that part.

A third of new HIV infections came from unsafe heterosexual contact. The huge majority of those cases think they are safe (its a gay problem, third world problem, drug addict problem, its not people like us), and so have no idea they could even be infected. But 47% of HIV cases are straight. There is no screening for unsafe heterosexual contact. They rely on blood testing to keep those cases out of the blood supply. Is that reliable enough? I don’t trust a random stranger. Why not just ask a few questions before taking a donation?

The whole point is simply this. Many of the rules were set up at a time when the disease had a hugely different demographic. It used to be called GRIDS, gay related immune deficiency, and the risk factors were being gay or haitian. Now, women are more at risk than men. Things have changed. Many of the rules in place make sense, others don’t. The blood supply has to be kept safe, so the rules should reflect reality, not society’s idea of who is at risk and who is not.

“I was like, Am I gay? Am I straight? And I realized...I'm just slutty. Where's my parade? What about slut pride?”

― Margaret Cho

09-13-2010, 12:11 PM

boner7484

Originally Posted by northmiamitop

A third of new HIV infections came from unsafe heterosexual contact. The huge majority of those cases think they are safe (its a gay problem, third world problem, drug addict problem, its not people like us), and so have no idea they could even be infected. But 47% of HIV cases are straight. There is no screening for unsafe heterosexual contact. They rely on blood testing to keep those cases out of the blood supply. Is that reliable enough? I don’t trust a random stranger. Why not just ask a few questions before taking a donation?
The whole point is simply this. Many of the rules were set up at a time when the disease had a hugely different demographic. It used to be called GRIDS, gay related immune deficiency, and the risk factors were being gay or haitian. Now, women are more at risk than men. Things have changed. Many of the rules in place make sense, others don’t. The blood supply has to be kept safe, so the rules should reflect reality, not society’s idea of who is at risk and who is not.

Agreed.

One of the questions used to be ‘have you had unprotected sex in the last 12 months’. If that question was answered honestly then that would cover the sexually transmitted HIV part without the need for any exclusion based on race or sexual preference.

Better yet, a test for HIV that does not rely on the antibodies building up to measurable levels. That would remove the lag time between infection and a positive test result.