The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   The FDA's Gay Blood Ban: A Reason for Colleges to Ban Blood Drives On Their Campuses? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=236488)

FreakyLocz14 November 9th, 2010 6:03 PM

The FDA's Gay Blood Ban: A Reason for Colleges to Ban Blood Drives On Their Campuses?
 
Back in 2008, the local California State University in my city banned blood drives on its campus under its non-discrimination policy. This FDA's policy of barring anyone who is "A male who has had sexual contact with another male; even if just once, since 1977." apparently conflicts with the campuses non-discrimination policy; as campus officials have determined.

I attended a community college in the area and I served on our student council. We seriously considered taking SJSU's lead by banning blood drives on our campus.

What are your thought on this?

http://www.news.sjsu.edu/23872/two-years-since-suspension-of-blood-drives

Livewire November 9th, 2010 9:15 PM

Blood, regardless of who it's from, is tested first for a number of vitamin/mineral deficiencies and diseases, including HIV. That being said, this is just discrimination from an out dated policy from the FDA.

However, shutting down the blood drive altogether is very counter-intuitive. We need blood, badly. And I doubt San Diego State can shakedown the FDA alone. Take the fight to the FDA, not the people who desperately need blood.

chiperoo November 9th, 2010 9:49 PM

Exactly what live_wire said. Hospitals/The Red Cross/Etc. need blood and they're missing out on a whole community of potential donors because of a policy that came about when a situation that is very different than it is now arose. Screening for HIV is mandatory for ALL blood (i think) and the screening process is relatively solid.

I don't see why anyone would get rid of something that gives easy access to the people who CAN donate. The policy itself is discriminatory but it doesn't change the fact that blood is always needed.

インフェルノの津波 November 9th, 2010 9:58 PM

What is this I don't even

I understand the logic of it, but still...this is messed up.

Kura November 9th, 2010 10:03 PM

This is 3 years old or older, isn't it? What are they going to do another passing of the law... since it conflicts?

What do you want me to say? I guess with the new research found about turning skin cells into blood this isn't gonna be an issue anymore, is it?

Zet November 9th, 2010 10:06 PM

The FDA needs to put on big boy pants and realize that gay people are widely accepted by a majority of people, so them donating blood isn't a bad thing.

ANARCHit3cht November 9th, 2010 10:11 PM

This is just so stupid.

Their blood is just the same as everyone else. It won't turn people gay, and it isn't any more or less susceptible to being contaminated.

Buut, how would they know if you did have such a relation? I mean, what if it was a one time thing, and nobody else knew about it?

インフェルノの津波 November 9th, 2010 10:13 PM

Whoa whoa whoa.

They're worried about AIDS and that other disease. That's PROBABLY why they're doing this thing.

Gunn November 9th, 2010 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by インフェルノの津波 (Post 6280090)
They're worried about AIDS and that other disease. That's PROBABLY why they're doing this thing.

This is exactly why they're doing this.

It all comes from the 1980s AIDS crisis. Its said that men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk of contracting and transmitting AIDS and other STDs. It really just sounds like a health concern to me, but then again, a lot has changed since 1977 (like mentioned before, it's a pretty outdated policy).

Captain Fabio November 10th, 2010 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narcissus Secret (Post 6280088)
This is just so stupid.

Their blood is just the same as everyone else. It won't turn people gay, and it isn't any more or less susceptible to being contaminated.

Buut, how would they know if you did have such a relation? I mean, what if it was a one time thing, and nobody else knew about it?

You have just COMPLETELY missed the point.
They aren't bothered about it 'turning them gay'. It is due to the possible contamination of their blood due to STD's.

Christ.

Shiny November 10th, 2010 4:32 AM

But aren't all human's capable of getting an STI?

Captain Fabio November 10th, 2010 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jubilation (Post 6280260)
But aren't all human's capable of getting an STI?

Of course. But isn't HIV more common in gay couples since *trying to put this without getting infracted* gay couples don't exactly have 'typical' sexual encounters like a man and woman.

doesn't matter November 10th, 2010 4:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunn (Post 6280097)
This is exactly why they're doing this.

It all comes from the 1980s AIDS crisis. Its said that men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk of contracting and transmitting AIDS and other STDs. It really just sounds like a health concern to me, but then again, a lot has changed since 1977 (like mentioned before, it's a pretty outdated policy).

Not much really has changed. Sure education has gone up, but anal sex is the most effective way to transmit STDs, and even today half of those diagnosed with HIV were infected via anal sex.

That said, as stated earlier, they screen all donations, but this is probably more effective. Personally, I feel it's better to be safe then sorry, even if it comes at the cost of lost opportunity.

Does the same ban apple to lesbians? No, because they don't follow the same trend regarding HIV/AIDS. In fact, they are probably the least at risk out of all groups with a transmission rate of zero or something, unless they share needles. Now if they banned lesbians too, then it would truly be discriminatory.

FreakyLocz14 November 10th, 2010 8:35 AM

If the technology for screening blood for hazards is so good, than excluding homosexual men from donating is conuterproductive. The more people who can donate blood, than more blood will be donated as a whole. All donors are asked about their sexual history and drug usage history to determine if thy are at risk for contaminating the blood supply with and STDs. They are even asked about their travels to high HIV areas such as Africa and certain Carribean nations.

twocows November 10th, 2010 1:22 PM

It's a policy that needs to be revised, but barring everyone from giving blood isn't the way to do it. That's just stupid.

Sydian November 11th, 2010 7:08 AM

It's not like the blood is tainted because they're gay. That's like saying they would rather an HIV+ straight male to give blood than a gay male. Besides, everyone should be getting checked for that before giving blood anyway. Oh, society...lol.

Richard Lynch November 11th, 2010 7:48 AM

I think these people need to get out of the retro days where AIDS was considered a "gay disease", because it's not. It's a non-discriminating virus... that's just common sense.

There's really nothing more to say about this, in my eyes. I don't usually debate something by just saying, "man, are they stupid", but...

Man, are they stupid.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Fabio (Post 6280265)
Of course. But isn't HIV more common in gay couples since *trying to put this without getting infracted* gay couples don't exactly have 'typical' sexual encounters like a man and woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amachi (Post 6280268)
Not much really has changed. Sure education has gone up, but anal sex is the most effective way to transmit STDs, and even today half of those diagnosed with HIV were infected via anal sex.

That said, as stated earlier, they screen all donations, but this is probably more effective. Personally, I feel it's better to be safe then sorry, even if it comes at the cost of lost opportunity.

Does the same ban apple to lesbians? No, because they don't follow the same trend regarding HIV/AIDS. In fact, they are probably the least at risk out of all groups with a transmission rate of zero or something, unless they share needles. Now if they banned lesbians too, then it would truly be discriminatory.

I'll say this, and I'll say this only once: AIDS has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. The only reason that statistics are higher among male gays is that people (and this even includes straights) rarely have protected anal sex. The anal sphincter doesn't foster the virus, gay men don't have a special "AIDS gland", or whatever reason may crop up. That's it, case closed on that point. It's non-refutable.

Yuoaman November 11th, 2010 7:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kura (Post 6280074)
This is 3 years old or older, isn't it? What are they going to do another passing of the law... since it conflicts?

What do you want me to say? I guess with the new research found about turning skin cells into blood this isn't gonna be an issue anymore, is it?

Except that it will probably four or five years of rigorous testing to be sure that there are no adverse side effects of creating blood in that manner. We can't just go without blood for transfusions for that long a period - blood is needed constantly for all of the procedures taking place all over the world. And this is just a ****ing ridiculous law, they test all blood before accepting it, so there's no reason to exclude anyone who wants to save lives by donating blood.

Eliminator Jr. November 11th, 2010 4:44 PM

Yeah my view on this is pretty simple. People should be able to give blood based on their health, not their sexuality. I know gay people have a higher likelihood of carrying HIVs, but that doesn't mean that every gay person has a HIV, and they do testing for that so it's a non-issue.

Livewire November 11th, 2010 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuoaman (Post 6281917)
Except that it will probably four or five years of rigorous testing to be sure that there are no adverse side effects of creating blood in that manner. We can't just go without blood for transfusions for that long a period - blood is needed constantly for all of the procedures taking place all over the world. And this is just a ****ing ridiculous law, they test all blood before accepting it, so there's no reason to exclude anyone who wants to save lives by donating blood.

The fact that they're turning away people who honestly want to save lives is absolutely sickening.

Yuoaman November 12th, 2010 1:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Live_Wire466 (Post 6282647)


The fact that they're turning away people who honestly want to save lives is absolutely sickening.

This.

To tell people they cannot save lives because they were born different makes me want to punch a tree or something.

doesn't matter November 12th, 2010 2:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lynch (Post 6281911)
I'll say this, and I'll say this only once: AIDS has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. The only reason that statistics are higher among male gays is that people (and this even includes straights) rarely have protected anal sex. The anal sphincter doesn't foster the virus, gay men don't have a special "AIDS gland", or whatever reason may crop up. That's it, case closed on that point. It's non-refutable.

Didn't imply that it did have anything to do with sexual orientation, I was merely pointing out the trend in statistics (which I retrieved from here btw: http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm). The statistics are a bit more telling as well when you consider the relative amount of gay males in the population.

From what I'm aware of, anal sex is riskier "because the membranes are thinner, tearing happens more easily, and there is no natural lubrication" (http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/transmission.html#sex_trans). Vaginal sex is quite effective too though, but not as effective as anal sex in transmitting the virus. This increased risk definitely has contributed to the above statistical trend in the US.

Also no such thing as completely safe sex - the risk of transmission is always there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuoaman (Post 6283015)
This.

To tell people they cannot save lives because they were born different makes me want to punch a tree or something.

Sounds like you'd enjoy Minecraft :P

amberfunk November 21st, 2010 5:57 PM

Not Being Able to Donate Blood After Having Hepatitis A
 
Apparently Lifesource and the Cdc do not allow anybody who has had hepatitis A after age eleven to donate blood. Both of their websites do not say why you cannot donate blood after you have had it. I want to know why and I think that this is completely wrong. I have had hepatitis A and I used to donate blood and now I cannot.

Here is some info on hepatitis A. It is transmitted through contaminated food or water by not washing the food thoroughly, usually vegetables. Hepatitis A is found in fecal matter and can be transmitted through fecal to oral contact. A person can have hepatitis A for months but goes away on its own and is not in a persons blood system anymore (my doctor told me that). Once a person gets hepatitis A they cannot get it again.

So I would like to know people on pc thoughts about this. What do you think about people who have had hepatitis A not being able to donate blood anymore even thought it is no longer in their system? Any thoughts as to why the cdc will not let anyone that has had hepatitis A after the age of eleven donate blood?

Guy November 21st, 2010 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 6281864)
Besides, everyone should be getting checked for that before giving blood anyway. Oh, society...lol.

My thoughts exactly. If you're going to be donating blood, then you should be getting yourself checked beforehand. They shouldn't have to deny someone of donating blood just because of their choice of sexuality. ):

...merged amberfunk's thread here seeing as they are two similar topics.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:44 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.