Stupid acid blood

[DarkwingChuck]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Some people like to do things to help others. Or so I've heard.

[IRC]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Yes they do test the blood afterwards but it's more cost effective to ask a bunch of questions about stuff before hand.

[DK]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Some people like to do things to help others. Or so I've heard.

Thousands, hell, millions of other ways to do it.

[Smurf Taco]

Re: Stupid acid blood

There's no way they're going to give free cookies and juice to HOMOS.

**** the Red Cross.

[Ryner]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Maybe we should segregate the blood into gay and non-gay piles. And only give the gay blood to gay people.

Or blacks.

[DarkwingChuck]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Yes they do test the blood afterwards but it's more cost effective to ask a bunch of questions about stuff before hand.

How? They still have to test all the blood. The questions don't accomplish anything. Like the question about whether you've used any intravenous recreational drugs. What's the point because it's not like the junkies who give blood or plasma for a few bucks to get a fix are going to answer that honestly.

Thousands, hell, millions of other ways to do it.

Of course there are but no one likes to be told they're not allowed to do one of them. I don't care about people in general so I could give a crap but I imagine it's annoying for people who do. It's like putting a toy in the Toys for Tots box and they give it back saying "We don't take donations from Jews."

[DK]

Re: Stupid acid blood

No, it isn't. You're not understanding that this policy is the direct result of an extremly damaging incident that has occured. Toys from jews didn't give a lot of people a terminal illness.

Yeah, I know it sucks but I understand the policy and if you've really got your heart set on the blood drive or something you could always volunteer to set it up and watch over things, too.

As for the test result/testing negative for 6 months thing, I believe that the limiting question is if you've had sex with a man in the past six months, isn't it? Not if you are gay in general. I dunno I haven't donated for a few months now.

[IRC]

Re: Stupid acid blood

How? They still have to test all the blood. The questions don't accomplish anything. Like the question about whether you've used any intravenous recreational drugs. What's the point because it's not like the junkies who give blood or plasma for a few bucks to get a fix are going to answer that honestly.

Because they don't have to waste time and money taking blood from someone then testing it and then finding out that person has Hepatitus and then just throwing away the blood. So instead you ask, do you have Hepatitus and the guy goes yeah and that's the end of it.

Yeah the whole making a judgement based on sexual preference is ****ed up but whatcha gonna do?

[DarkwingChuck]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Really the main reason I don't like the questionnaire isn't the gay issue. The last time I gave blood I'd never had sex with anybody so it didn't matter. I had a cousin Davin who died of AIDS. He was a junkie basically and would often give blood or plasma for money to get drugs. That's how he found out he had HIV in the first place. The times he donated between contracting HIV and the sample that tested positive may have infected several people.

People either don't know they have a disease or lie about their risks. I'm not saying they should be more lenient on donations, just the opposite. I'd assume every person has every disease in the book and is lying or doesn't know it so the questionnaire is a moot point and testing the blood is the only safeguard we have.

I guess if you see the money saved by weeding out people before testing as outweighing the many lost donations from healthy people who are eliminated it makes sense. But that just makes me think of how that wouldn't be an issue if we spent as much money on saving lives than we do on killing people on the other side of the world. Hell, they could probably take the money they spend on printing all those millions of questionnaires and cover a lot of blood tests.

*********************
If you can't tell I don't like or trust the human race in general or even on an individual basis 99% of the time. That taints my views on everything and cause me not to have 'perspective' most of the time. I'm aware that that causes me to take extremely impractical stands on a lot of issues. But I consider that in all practicality we're already doomed beyond hope so any conjecture about how to make things better can only be done without the context of practicality. Does that make sense? Basically, I'm acknowledging that my opinions on some things, including this issue, are impractical.

[Patryn]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Don't they test the blood after taking it?

I just want to reiterate that you can test negative for HIV for up to six months after infection. That's why, as it has been said, the question is "have you had sex with a man in the last 6 months", because that is the window in which you can still have a false negative.

So you can't just say "can't they test it" because the tests are not 100% accurate.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Weeding out blood from gays is moreso irrational than it is practical. Blacks and hispanics have a higher risk of being HIV positive than whites; perhaps it would be 'cost effective' to make sure they can't give blood either, by that logic. 30 Hispanics out of every 100,000 have HIV, 76 blacks out of every 100,000 have HIV, while only 9 whites of every 100,000 have HIV.

[Alex]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Ryner's idea was pretty funny.

[Alzar]

Re: Stupid acid blood

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2004*

Male-to-male sexual contact 441,380
Injection Drug Use 176,162
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 64,833
Heterosexual contact 59,939

So, 7.4 times more likely for males to get HIV through male-to-male contact than heterosexual contact. 7.4 times more likely = risk factor = reasoning behind asking the question.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Basically, the risk is higher catching HIV from someone black who donates blood than from someone gay who donates blood. Yet it wouldn't be politically correct for the Red Cross and other organizations to apply the same discrimination accordingly.

Their methodology of denying gays the ability to donate blood thus lacks consistency if they are to be following the logic that gays shouldn't donate because they pose a higher risk of aids than the general population. Blacks pose an even higher risk than gays of having HIV.

Nevertheless, I abhor such discrimination. Just as I wouldn't want them to discriminate against blacks in such a manner if they so decided, so too am I currently disgusted how gays are treated.

[Kire]

Re: Stupid acid blood

Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 64,833

So...did those guys stick a needle in their arm while getting plowed from behind? Dude, that's hardcore.