Any time you're within an easily definable group with a statistically higher chance of a deadly disease, the Red Cross pretty much has a good reason to reject you.
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
Any time you're within an easily definable group with a statistically higher chance of a deadly disease, the Red Cross pretty much has a good reason to reject you.
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
Or "anybody who has had unprotected anal sex with multiple partners" versus "anybody in a committed long-term monogamous relationship."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Any time you're within an easily definable group with a statistically higher chance of a deadly disease, the Red Cross pretty much has a good reason to reject you.
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
Or "anybody who has had unprotected anal sex with multiple partners" versus "anybody in a committed long-term monogamous relationship."
Quick question: you can't get money for your blood, can you?
only plasma.
What about sperm?
I mean, can you sell sperm?
Yes.
You might actually be a good candidate, if the tales of your strapping handsomeness are true. You have to be tall (over 5'9", usually), good looking, having a good job is helpful, have a good medical history and a good family medical history. You also need to commit to weekly visits over a long period of time, usually 3-6 months.
You can potentially make $50-200 per week depending on your criteria and how often you donate.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Quick question: you can't get money for your blood, can you?
only plasma.
What about sperm?
I mean, can you sell sperm?
Yes.
You might actually be a good candidate, if the tales of your strapping handsomeness are true. You have to be tall (over 5'9", usually), good looking, having a good job is helpful, have a good medical history and a good family medical history. You also need to commit to weekly visits over a long period of time, usually 3-6 months.
You can potentially make $50-200 per week depending on your criteria and how often you donate.
You seem to know quite a bit about this, Feral. Quite a bit.
Any time you're within an easily definable group with a statistically higher chance of a deadly disease, the Red Cross pretty much has a good reason to reject you.
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
Or "anybody who has had unprotected anal sex with multiple partners" versus "anybody in a committed long-term monogamous relationship."
I hate to say it but anyone who caught HIV in 1977 is probably dead. That's the other kicker - if you're last contact was over say, 12 years ago, you almost certainly don't have HIV.
Quick question: you can't get money for your blood, can you?
only plasma.
What about sperm?
I mean, can you sell sperm?
Yes.
You might actually be a good candidate, if the tales of your strapping handsomeness are true. You have to be tall (over 5'9", usually), good looking, having a good job is helpful, have a good medical history and a good family medical history. You also need to commit to weekly visits over a long period of time, usually 3-6 months.
You can potentially make $50-200 per week depending on your criteria and how often you donate.
You seem to know quite a bit about this, Feral. Quite a bit.
I'm not a doctor or any sort of medical professional, so I don't know how much these restrictions protect against contamination. But if they do, thne I see no problem. Public safety is more important than your feelings.
Church on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I'm not a doctor or any sort of medical professional, so I don't know how much these restrictions protect against contamination. But if they do, thne I see no problem. Public safety is more important than your feelings.
Cost and time prohibitive, and insisting on a test followed by a weeks wait would cut the number of donors enormously. Its already hard enough to maintain stocks, without having to have a waiting period before donation.
Can't the same arguments be applied to racial or religious profiling, or any other kind of discrimination against a particular group?
Is testing donors for HIV cost-prohibitive?
I don't know how expensive it is, but it is an expense, and therefore best avoided when possible. So no, this isn't the same kind of discrimination, unless your religion happens to involve anal sex or blood transfusions as part of its practices. There is reason behind it. It's just somewhat outdated reasoning, and poorly executed.
Aydr on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm not a doctor or any sort of medical professional, so I don't know how much these restrictions protect against contamination. But if they do, thne I see no problem. Public safety is more important than your feelings.
But inadequate blood supply is a public safety issue, as well. As it stands, many people who actually are at low risk for HIV are being turned away because of outdated restrictions. A better set of questions could be devised to eliminate high-risk donors without resorting to blanket statements like "no gay men," and this would lead to a significantly increased blood supply, which benefits everybody.
I've worked for and with charities, as have my family, and one thing I've noticed is a tendency to ignore certain laws/obligations because they're doing good work (I'm not going to inverted comma that - they are doing very important work).
Redundancy/dismissal laws, all kinds of discrimination laws (e.g. you're a carer and your caree decides they don't like your ethnicity), salary rules etc etc, maximum work hours....
It's a big old ethical question - is there ever an excuse to discriminate?
My take would be no - the societal implications are worse than the damage to the altruistic activity.
Any time you're within an easily definable group with a statistically higher chance of a deadly disease, the Red Cross pretty much has a good reason to reject you.
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
I think a good solution would be to require a blood test report from the gay person in question, rather than outright turning down their blood donation. The blood test report would have to be recent within X weeks/months or something and X can be determined at a balance point between risk and benefits.
Can't the same arguments be applied to racial or religious profiling, or any other kind of discrimination against a particular group?
Is testing donors for HIV cost-prohibitive?
I don't know how expensive it is, but it is an expense, and therefore best avoided when possible. So no, this isn't the same kind of discrimination, unless your religion happens to involve anal sex or blood transfusions as part of its practices. There is reason behind it. It's just somewhat outdated reasoning, and poorly executed.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is of course different from religious discrimination. However the arguments behind it are similar (and perhaps similarly flawed, but I think that's not relevant - I don't have to prove that lots of terrorists don't have beards to argue they shouldn't be full-body-cavity-searched at airports).
The basic argument is that in this particular situation, one group causes a problem, and therefore it's OK to discriminate.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Any time you're within an easily definable group with a statistically higher chance of a deadly disease, the Red Cross pretty much has a good reason to reject you.
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
Yikes. I knew there was a spike recently in new HIV transmissions among gay men, but I didn't realize so many new infections still come from gay men.
EDIT: I still maintain that "men who have had sex with other men since 1977" is still too broad a group, although my example of dividing the demographic was obviously flawed. Feral had better ideas.
Can't the same arguments be applied to racial or religious profiling, or any other kind of discrimination against a particular group?
Is testing donors for HIV cost-prohibitive?
I don't know how expensive it is, but it is an expense, and therefore best avoided when possible. So no, this isn't the same kind of discrimination, unless your religion happens to involve anal sex or blood transfusions as part of its practices. There is reason behind it. It's just somewhat outdated reasoning, and poorly executed.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is of course different from religious discrimination. However the arguments behind it are similar (and perhaps similarly flawed, but I think that's not relevant - I don't have to prove that lots of terrorists don't have beards to argue they shouldn't be full-body-cavity-searched at airports).
The basic argument is that in this particular situation, one group causes a problem, and therefore it's OK to discriminate.
Well, I suppose what they should do is if you fall into one of the "at risk" groups is require you to present them with a recent 2 part HIV test in which the final result reached you within the last month. Or something like that.
Is it really discrimination if the problem is actually real?
Accepting blood from gay men -> Higher rate of HIV in your blood
Testing of Large batches + Higher rate -> More blood thrown away than the bank gained
Accepting blood from gay men -> Less blood available
They've clearly done the maths and found that accepting blood from gay men due to their high risk of infection would mean that they would in fact have less blood available. Its not like they cant test the blood, its just that only testing of large batches at once is cost effective. If the rate of infection amongst gay men was only a few % higher then they would just take it and throw away a few batches.
They've clearly done the maths and found that accepting blood from gay men due to their high risk of infection would mean that they would in fact have less blood available.
I sincerely doubt that mathematical calculations were involved in this decision. Do you have any proof beyond an earnest hope that they did the the right thing?
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
Now that I think about it, 100% of new HIV transmissions occur in human beings. Clearly, humans constitute a high-risk group that must be removed from the donor pool.
I think it still is discrimination even if the problem is 'real'. This gay man is HIV positive, this is not. Assuming that one particular person has HIV because of their sexuality is the very definition of discrimination.
Wait, the HIV transmission rate is 0.3%? If I have sex with someone who has HIV, the probability of me contacting HIV is P=0.003?
During the deadliest part of the AIDS crisis, there were still men who engaged in shockingly dangerous behavior who never managed to contract HIV. Some other men who were relatively prudish contracted HIV from their monogamous partners. Probability is a harsh mistress.
They've clearly done the maths and found that accepting blood from gay men due to their high risk of infection would mean that they would in fact have less blood available.
I sincerely doubt that mathematical calculations were involved in this decision. Do you have any proof beyond an earnest hope that they did the the right thing?
I know that they are absolutely desperate beyond comprehension for more sources of blood, and would love to be able to accept anyone they possibly could. Considering that with access to a few facts about their testing data (ie batch size, cost per test, increased chance for HIV amongst gay men) this maths would be relatively trivial to carry out I'm assuming they did.
In the UK however according to www.blood.co.uk having relations with other men does not exclude you from giving blood. Whether this is due to a different testing policy, or a different infection rate, or indicative of more sinister beliefs at the US blood banks I don't know.
They've clearly done the maths and found that accepting blood from gay men due to their high risk of infection would mean that they would in fact have less blood available.
I sincerely doubt that mathematical calculations were involved in this decision. Do you have any proof beyond an earnest hope that they did the the right thing?
I know that they are absolutely desperate beyond comprehension for more sources of blood, and would love to be able to accept anyone they possibly could. Considering that with access to a few facts about their testing data (ie batch size, cost per test, increased chance for HIV amongst gay men) this maths would be relatively trivial to carry out I'm assuming they did.
So wishful thinking it is then?
I would certainly hope they would do an analysis with proper math but even that might not be able to tell them enough. The Red Cross is a non-profit and relies heavily on donations. Given how politically volatile the whole "gay" thing has been the past few years the benefits to blood collection may be heavily outweighed by the potential PR backlash. More importantly a suit somewhere may believe it to be so.
Wait, the HIV transmission rate is 0.3%? If I have sex with someone who has HIV, the probability of me contacting HIV is P=0.003?
During the deadliest part of the AIDS crisis, there were still men who engaged in shockingly dangerous behavior who never managed to contract HIV. Some other men who were relatively prudish contracted HIV from their monogamous partners. Probability is a harsh mistress.
I understand that, it's just that I was sure that the chances of infection were like 90-95%.
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
I don't know if someone has said this already, but the reason Gay=AIDS thing is around is because Homosexuals use protection far less that hetero's. They do this because they can't get someone pregenant, and that is about 70% of the reason for protection out the window. Sure, while you think about it, you'd say "Isn't it more like 50%?", but in the heat of the moment, they simply think "Oh what the hell, what are the odds?"
I understand that, it's just that I was sure that the chances of infection were like 90-95%.
That's because people are stupid and don't understand just what .003 means when you do the action repeatedly.
It is probably for the best that common perception is that you have a double digit % chance of transmission with sexual intercourse.
Agreed. In the case of enforcing save sex, it's for the best that people think that it's extremely likely that you'll catch/transmit something if one of the two partners is carrying something. People on average tend to make stupid decisions, especially at a young age. I imagine that, if people thought the odds of a disease being transmitted through unprotected sex was very small, we'd have a lot more people engaging in it and a lot more cases of infection.
It's a scare tactic, but this isn't some unrealistic crap like telling our children to hide under their desks for protection from an atomic bomb; People need to be afraid to engage in unsafe sex in most situations, because the fear of likelihood at catching a disease and/or unwanted pregnancy is the only thing that consistently works.
Goatmon on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
In the case of enforcing save sex, it's for the best that people think that it's extremely likely that you'll catch/transmit something if one of the two partners is carrying something. People on average tend to make stupid decisions, especially at a young age. I imagine that, if people thought the odds of a disease being transmitted through unprotected sex was very small, we'd have a lot more people engaging in it and a lot more cases of infection.
It's a scare tactic, but this isn't some unrealistic crap like telling our children to hide under their desks for protection from an atomic bomb; People need to be afraid to engage in unsafe sex in most situations.
It's a white lie.
Sure you can have a bitch about "teh govahnmants lyan 2 mi", but the fact is some lies are neccesary to prevent greater evils.
I understand that, it's just that I was sure that the chances of infection were like 90-95%.
That's because people are stupid and don't understand just what .003 means when you do the action repeatedly.
It is probably for the best that common perception is that you have a double digit % chance of transmission with sexual intercourse.
Sure, but I always thought that the main cause of HIV infection (outside of Africa, at least) is random, casual, one-time sex. Which doesn't really makes sense if the per-act chance of infection is so low.
This suggest that a major source of infection is couples who repeatedly have sex, not knowing that one of them is infected.
In the UK however according to www.blood.co.uk having relations with other men does not exclude you from giving blood. Whether this is due to a different testing policy, or a different infection rate, or indicative of more sinister beliefs at the US blood banks I don't know.
Really. I'm fairly certain the "pre-suck your blood out" form asks if you have man on man sex. *Checks site* A-ha! Question 12 from this section: http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/flash_questions.html asks if you have the gay sex (even with a condom) and disqualifies you if you say yes.
Hah, we even have a 28 day quarantine on people coming back from America due to West Nile virus.
The problem with HIV though is that it takes a bunch of time for it to manifest in the blood stream - I believe you need 2 tests separated by 3 months in order to confirm you don't have it, and on the scale of time the blood bank can operate I'm not sure that's entirely feasible (would be happy to be corrected).
Modern HIV testing can produce results in minutes, and all blood goes through a battery of tests before they are prepared for transfusion.
Whole blood is not tested on an individual donor-by-donor basis, though. They test the blood in aggregate batches from multiple donors (separated by type) and if a batch shows up positive the whole batch has to be disposed of.
So there is a good impetus for eliminating high-risk groups from the donation process.
I'm going to have to point out that this is entirely incorrect. Each whole blood donation is tested individually for each federally required test and any others the blood center chooses to perform, whether you donate to the Red Cross or your local blood center. You are probably thinking of plasma testing, which is done by pooling samples.
As far as letting gay men donate goes, the Red Cross isn't the problem. The problem is that the regulations in place do not let the Red Cross or any other blood center accept blood from gay men, and if they bend the rules they will get permanently shut down. If you want this to change, write your state representatives and let them know where you stand on the issue.
It's not that they don't want the blood, either. A lot of people in the blood banking industry are desperately unhappy about the restrictions in the blood supply caused by some of the broader regulations. Not letting gay men donate is a big concern for them, because there are a lot of gay men out there who would donate if they could. Another one is the restrictions the FDA is considering on allowing donations from women who have been pregnant multiple times due to the risk of TRALI - this hasn't made it into the regulations yet, but some blood centers are already incorporating into their policies in anticipation of it being made mandatory.
Blood centers are (almost) always desperate for more blood, but they also have a responsibility to public health. They can't afford to bend the rules in place, both because they would be allowing more risk in the donation process, and because they would get shut down by the FDA, ensuring a smaller blood supply available.
Posts
The risk groups are not defined narrowly enough. If you divide men who have sex with men into "Men who have had sex with men from 1977-1995" and "Men who have had sex with men since 1995," you're going to find that the latter group has a much smaller chance of being HIV positive.
What about sperm?
I mean, can you sell sperm?
Or "anybody who has had unprotected anal sex with multiple partners" versus "anybody in a committed long-term monogamous relationship."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
:^:
Yes.
You might actually be a good candidate, if the tales of your strapping handsomeness are true. You have to be tall (over 5'9", usually), good looking, having a good job is helpful, have a good medical history and a good family medical history. You also need to commit to weekly visits over a long period of time, usually 3-6 months.
You can potentially make $50-200 per week depending on your criteria and how often you donate.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
XBL: QuazarX
I hate to say it but anyone who caught HIV in 1977 is probably dead. That's the other kicker - if you're last contact was over say, 12 years ago, you almost certainly don't have HIV.
*scrambles for the nearest sperm bank*
Is testing donors for HIV cost-prohibitive?
It must be. Otherwise, they'd administer the 20-minute HIV test to everyone who shows up to the donation center.
I don't know how expensive it is, but it is an expense, and therefore best avoided when possible. So no, this isn't the same kind of discrimination, unless your religion happens to involve anal sex or blood transfusions as part of its practices. There is reason behind it. It's just somewhat outdated reasoning, and poorly executed.
But inadequate blood supply is a public safety issue, as well. As it stands, many people who actually are at low risk for HIV are being turned away because of outdated restrictions. A better set of questions could be devised to eliminate high-risk donors without resorting to blanket statements like "no gay men," and this would lead to a significantly increased blood supply, which benefits everybody.
Redundancy/dismissal laws, all kinds of discrimination laws (e.g. you're a carer and your caree decides they don't like your ethnicity), salary rules etc etc, maximum work hours....
It's a big old ethical question - is there ever an excuse to discriminate?
My take would be no - the societal implications are worse than the damage to the altruistic activity.
But it's quite hard to judge.
What are you talking about?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is of course different from religious discrimination. However the arguments behind it are similar (and perhaps similarly flawed, but I think that's not relevant - I don't have to prove that lots of terrorists don't have beards to argue they shouldn't be full-body-cavity-searched at airports).
The basic argument is that in this particular situation, one group causes a problem, and therefore it's OK to discriminate.
Yikes. I knew there was a spike recently in new HIV transmissions among gay men, but I didn't realize so many new infections still come from gay men.
EDIT: I still maintain that "men who have had sex with other men since 1977" is still too broad a group, although my example of dividing the demographic was obviously flawed. Feral had better ideas.
Well, I suppose what they should do is if you fall into one of the "at risk" groups is require you to present them with a recent 2 part HIV test in which the final result reached you within the last month. Or something like that.
Is it really discrimination if the problem is actually real?
Accepting blood from gay men -> Higher rate of HIV in your blood
Testing of Large batches + Higher rate -> More blood thrown away than the bank gained
Accepting blood from gay men -> Less blood available
They've clearly done the maths and found that accepting blood from gay men due to their high risk of infection would mean that they would in fact have less blood available. Its not like they cant test the blood, its just that only testing of large batches at once is cost effective. If the rate of infection amongst gay men was only a few % higher then they would just take it and throw away a few batches.
I sincerely doubt that mathematical calculations were involved in this decision. Do you have any proof beyond an earnest hope that they did the the right thing?
During the deadliest part of the AIDS crisis, there were still men who engaged in shockingly dangerous behavior who never managed to contract HIV. Some other men who were relatively prudish contracted HIV from their monogamous partners. Probability is a harsh mistress.
I know that they are absolutely desperate beyond comprehension for more sources of blood, and would love to be able to accept anyone they possibly could. Considering that with access to a few facts about their testing data (ie batch size, cost per test, increased chance for HIV amongst gay men) this maths would be relatively trivial to carry out I'm assuming they did.
In the UK however according to www.blood.co.uk having relations with other men does not exclude you from giving blood. Whether this is due to a different testing policy, or a different infection rate, or indicative of more sinister beliefs at the US blood banks I don't know.
So wishful thinking it is then?
I would certainly hope they would do an analysis with proper math but even that might not be able to tell them enough. The Red Cross is a non-profit and relies heavily on donations. Given how politically volatile the whole "gay" thing has been the past few years the benefits to blood collection may be heavily outweighed by the potential PR backlash. More importantly a suit somewhere may believe it to be so.
I understand that, it's just that I was sure that the chances of infection were like 90-95%.
It is probably for the best that common perception is that you have a double digit % chance of transmission with sexual intercourse.
Agreed. In the case of enforcing save sex, it's for the best that people think that it's extremely likely that you'll catch/transmit something if one of the two partners is carrying something. People on average tend to make stupid decisions, especially at a young age. I imagine that, if people thought the odds of a disease being transmitted through unprotected sex was very small, we'd have a lot more people engaging in it and a lot more cases of infection.
It's a scare tactic, but this isn't some unrealistic crap like telling our children to hide under their desks for protection from an atomic bomb; People need to be afraid to engage in unsafe sex in most situations, because the fear of likelihood at catching a disease and/or unwanted pregnancy is the only thing that consistently works.
It's a white lie.
Sure you can have a bitch about "teh govahnmants lyan 2 mi", but the fact is some lies are neccesary to prevent greater evils.
Sure, but I always thought that the main cause of HIV infection (outside of Africa, at least) is random, casual, one-time sex. Which doesn't really makes sense if the per-act chance of infection is so low.
This suggest that a major source of infection is couples who repeatedly have sex, not knowing that one of them is infected.
Really. I'm fairly certain the "pre-suck your blood out" form asks if you have man on man sex. *Checks site* A-ha! Question 12 from this section: http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/flash_questions.html asks if you have the gay sex (even with a condom) and disqualifies you if you say yes.
Hah, we even have a 28 day quarantine on people coming back from America due to West Nile virus.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
As far as letting gay men donate goes, the Red Cross isn't the problem. The problem is that the regulations in place do not let the Red Cross or any other blood center accept blood from gay men, and if they bend the rules they will get permanently shut down. If you want this to change, write your state representatives and let them know where you stand on the issue.
It's not that they don't want the blood, either. A lot of people in the blood banking industry are desperately unhappy about the restrictions in the blood supply caused by some of the broader regulations. Not letting gay men donate is a big concern for them, because there are a lot of gay men out there who would donate if they could. Another one is the restrictions the FDA is considering on allowing donations from women who have been pregnant multiple times due to the risk of TRALI - this hasn't made it into the regulations yet, but some blood centers are already incorporating into their policies in anticipation of it being made mandatory.
Blood centers are (almost) always desperate for more blood, but they also have a responsibility to public health. They can't afford to bend the rules in place, both because they would be allowing more risk in the donation process, and because they would get shut down by the FDA, ensuring a smaller blood supply available.