|
Anderson Cooper did a really moving tribute to the victims of the shooting. I'm not a crier but it brought me to tears. http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2148868
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Cool excusing a discriminatory practice there duder 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People may conceivably lie about any of the screening questions but that doesn't mean we should do away with the screening altogether. That people want it to be changed suggests that it is, in part, self enforcing. Which is better than nothing. Deterring at-risk donations and screening all donations are both facets of ensuring the supply is safe for use. It actually does mean we should do away with screening we know is garbage, such as "if you're a man who's ever had sex with a man, you can never donate". Like, multiple countries have switched to things like only 6 month deferrals and have seen no increased rate of HIV or other nasty things in the blood that gets used for transfusion. In fact there are many countries where there is no restriction at all on gay men donating blood: Argentina, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russia, San Marino, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand and Uruguay These countries haven't experienced any uptick in contaminated blood reaching transfusion patients since switching to having no deferral period or no indefinite deferral period. The ban on gay men donating blood is utterly unneccesary with modern screening. Yes, this stuff was needed in the past. That was because we had way worse testing of blood, when there was any at all. But it's 30 years later and technology has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People may conceivably lie about any of the screening questions but that doesn't mean we should do away with the screening altogether. That people want it to be changed suggests that it is, in part, self enforcing. Which is better than nothing. Deterring at-risk donations and screening all donations are both facets of ensuring the supply is safe for use. You're kind of conflating correlation with causation here. Yes, gay men and some other groups are at greater risk to be infected with HIV, but that's not a direct result of being gay, because again, being gay doesn't cause HIV to spotaneously appear in your blood. Being gay does tend to correlate with behaviors and life conditions that do cause someone to be at risk for infection; i.e., being homeless which in turn correlates to needle sharing, or engaging in unprotected sex. That's why the pre-donation questionaire asks about those behaviors, too. If you control for those risk factors, there's no reason to think that gay blood is any more at risk to be contaminated with HIV than straight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
I still see little reason to change it unless having gay men donate is going to make a significant difference to the blood supply's availability. If you are in need of blood in a specific area or at a specific time then yes, lift it, because obviously the lack of blood poses a greater risk than the risk of infectious disease. Otherwise, as with all of the risk categories, donation while being a member of one should be discouraged, because there is no reason to increase the possible risk if you don't need the blood. Keeshhound posted:You're kind of conflating correlation with causation here. Yes, gay men and some other groups are at greater risk to be infected with HIV, but that's not a direct result of being gay, because again, being gay doesn't cause HIV to spotaneously appear in your blood. And I support those screening questions as well. As I said, asking people about their sexuality is ambiguous and somewhat tangential to the existence of the risk category, which is why the questionnaire asks about specific sexual activities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I still see little reason to change it unless having gay men donate is going to make a significant difference to the blood supply's availability. But at least 19 countries have absolutely no ban on gay men donating blood, and they do not have less safe blood supply as a result. Seriously, what don't you understand about that? If the donation bans really were effective, there'd be problems showing up in all 19 of the countries I listed which have had gay men freely allowed to donate blood for various periods of time. But none of them have the problem!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. And as before I don't really see blood donation as a civil rights issue so I have no particular impetus to push for it on those grounds. As far as it has a medical benefit I am fine with it, otherwise I have absolutely no issue with telling people at a significantly higher risk of giving unsuitable blood, not to attempt to donate. Especially not if the donations can be secured from a less at-risk portion of the population instead. If and when blood stock is low then there may be a need for it, when it is not, then there is not. And in either case, relaxing donation screening in any way would not be my immediate go-to for increasing blood donation rates. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
I've been in a monogamous relationship for over 5 years. I was HIV tested six months ago. Why can't I donate blood? Is AIDS going to spontaneously manifest in my human being body? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I still see little reason to change it unless having gay men donate is going to make a significant difference to the blood supply's availability. It will though? As I pointed out earlier, ARC and ABC are both constantly calling for donations, and pretty much every blood bank in the country reports being chronically understocked. In light of that, what we have is a donor ban that everyone here seems to agree is of negligible benefit, and clearly harms collection efforts either by discouraging otherwise willing donors or by encouraging donors to lie about their sexuality, which then calls into question the truth of all the other answers they provide. OwlFancier posted:I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. The state of US blood collection efforts are such that it really can't be afforded right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:It will though? As I pointed out earlier, ARC and ABC are both constantly calling for donations, and pretty much every blood bank in the country reports being chronically understocked. I don't really think that lying about one thing makes people lie about other things, otherwise I would presumably have to think that LGBT people are inherently untrustworthy because they have probably not been out to everyone all the time, which is obviously stupid. People may lie for what they believe is a good reason and it doesn't necessarily indicate that they would be dishonest arbitrarily. And as to the general issue of blood supply in the US, is that a thing unique to the US? All blood services ask for donations all the time because obviously you want people to keep giving blood, but it isn't contradictory to screen people out while also asking for as many donations as possible, if your goal is to get as many ideal donors as possible. The UK blood service as far as I know is not generally severely understocked, though they are concerned about falling donor numbers, and they also recently relaxed their requirements so again I don't really see screening as the problem when it comes to limited blood stocks. It's a nice gesture to have changed the requirements, I suppose, but I don't really feel one way or another about it as far as my rights go, and I doubt it will do much good medically. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. Buddy, look, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone from having the bans for people who've had sex with men who had sex with men in place, whether they be indefinite ones or time based. It's already been proven in multiple countries, all using modern testing, that allowing gay people to donate blood freely does nothing to harm the blood supply. Why are you so insistent on pretending like nothing's changed in blood testing since the 80s?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Because the question seems like a red herring as far as the state of blood availability goes, and utterly irrelevant as far as LGBT rights goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
If the gay blood ban is so important and not bigoted, then do you feel Florida just potentially killed god knows how many people by temporarily dismissing it in the wake of the shooting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the question seems like a red herring as far as the state of blood availability goes, and utterly irrelevant as far as LGBT rights goes. A system that explicitly discriminates against gay men is utterly irrelevant as far as LGBT rights goes? A policy that contributes to the false stigma of gay men as diseased is utterly irrelevant as far as LGBT rights goes? Are you exceptionally dense or just a homophobe who doesn't want to admit it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the question seems like a red herring as far as the state of blood availability goes, and utterly irrelevant as far as LGBT rights goes. It's not a red herring, we know that the bans on gay blood donation are no longer needed. Hence it's part of LGBT rights that they should be removed now that they are no longer needed. At the very least, keeping the ban is unfairly depriving LGBT people of various incentives that blood drives often offer, which range from free haircuts to straight up getting $20 depending on the promotion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Don't stand in the way of my right to a sugar cookie and a sticker you motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really think that lying about one thing makes people lie about other things, otherwise I would presumably have to think that LGBT people are inherently untrustworthy because they have probably not been out to everyone all the time, which is obviously stupid. People may lie for what they believe is a good reason and it doesn't necessarily indicate that they would be dishonest arbitrarily. There's a whole body of research already that shows that someone who's lied once will have significantly decreased inhibitions about doing it again in the same context. The entire pre-donation survey is wholly reliant on the donor being 100% honest. Putting a gay donor in a position were they need to breach that presumption of honesty to do what they believe is the right thing weakens the integrity of the entire survey. If they're going to lie about that to do the right thing, why shouldn't they also lie about having practiced unsafe sex, or sharing needles if they've recently tested negative? It's the same for anyone, regardless of orientation, but the survey is written such that gay men are forced to lie once already. Edit: I'd like to clarify that I in now way mean to accuse anyone here of lying on a blood donation form on their answers to the legitimately useful questions. I trust that all of you fine people are well informed enough to recognize which questions are important and which are blatantly obsolete. I am, however concerned that the broader population of the US is not always so well informed. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
I'd still like to know the justification for me not donating blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really think that lying about one thing makes people lie about other things, otherwise I would presumably have to think that LGBT people are inherently untrustworthy because they have probably not been out to everyone all the time, which is obviously stupid. People may lie for what they believe is a good reason and it doesn't necessarily indicate that they would be dishonest arbitrarily. People will say some really dumb poo poo to defend the status quo, even without a good reason to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
I can see OwlFancier's point (let's call it the "abundance of caution" position) but I think it's fairly unreasonable to prohibit gay men who are not having unsafe sex from donating blood. Having unsafe sex with a new partner within a certain time period should be disqualifying no matter which genders are involved, and there is no special risk posed by gay men's blood if they are not engaging in unsafe sexual practices. I don't like seeing it frames as a rights issue, because as OwlFancier points out, blood donation is not for the benefit of the donor. Likewise, prohibiting people who've received tattoos recently, or who have engaged in sex work, or taken intravenous drugs, is not denying those people rights or making a moral judgement about their behaviour. It's better to frame it as a common sense issue: no additional risk is posed by gay men donating blood, any more than other people who've engaged in unsafe sex, so why are we disqualifying a huge pool of potential donors?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Buddy, look, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone from having the bans for people who've had sex with men who had sex with men in place, whether they be indefinite ones or time based. This is really should be the end to that argument. OwlFancier is free to post his opinions, but happens to be entirely wrong about this matter. Factually there is no reason to prevent gays from donating blood. OwlFancier posted:I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. This is not 'excessive caution', at this point it is straight-up discriminatory. And worse, this is not somewhere it can be afforded. We have all the data necessary to determine if there is a statistical reason to prevent gays from donating blood, and as it turns out: there isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
For the howevermanyth time, donating blood is not a right. The restriction is based on a statistical fact about HIV rates which I would much rather wasn't true, but my preference on the matter won't change whether it is or not, though with luck medical advances may, one day. There is a difference between my demanding a right to which other people are entitled, where the right exists to better the circumstances of the right holder, on the basis that there is no even remotely academic reason why I should not have that right. And my saying that I should have the right to do something which is intended for the benefit of others, because I wish it to be for my benefit, while likely having little impact either way for the intended beneficiary. Demanding the right to donate blood misunderstands the point of blood donation. It is not for the benefit of the donor. It seems absolutely incorrect to me to demand the right to do it on the basis that it's discriminatory not to let you do it. With just about every other commonly discussed issue it makes perfect sense. We should be able to marry, to adopt, to work and to speak and to do every other thing, the purpose of which is to enrich ourselves, those rights exist to promote the wellbeing of people and our people have as much right to be well as any other. But LGBT people have no more of a right to give blood than cis, hetero people do. Giving blood should be 100% contingent on the utility of that donation. So again, yes the rules should be changed if there is a demonstrable medical benefit to do so, which I can understand in some cases. But absolutely not because of a perceived right to participate in blood donation, which absolutely nobody on earth should have. The entire concept just doesn't fit into the framework of civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
You're just concern trolling at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Again you continue to ignore the facts while focusing on the idea that it's not a 'right'. There's statistically no reason to prevent gays from donating blood, and it's not caution that's affordable at any point in time as blood is in a constant state of needed supply. Give me a good reason to support your cause other than 'donating isn't a right'. Because a few years ago 'marriage isn't a right' was a legitimate argument, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Again, the ban, which has no reasonable medical basis at this point, contributes directly to the stigma of gay men being seen as diseased or unclean. This isn't about how blood donation is or isn't a right, it's about getting rid of a discriminatory stigma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
only the purest blood is permitted in these veins
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
mods pls change my name to "UNCLEAN GAY BLOOD"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
There is a medical benefit: more potential donors means more potential donations, and more potential donations means more potential lives saved. Even aside from the discriminatory aspects of the ban, which are despicable, there's no reason to not want as many donors as possible. Blood doesn't last forever and blood banks will always need more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
It was weird cause I was a dude who went every 60 days to donate from the time I turned 18 until I figured out I was queer. I slept with a cute boy after a party and, like, two weeks later went to give blood and realized I was no longer allowed to, ever. It was one of the most disassociative and alienating things that ever happened in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Marriage is a right, it has always been a right, because marriage as an institution exists to change the legal rules surrounding the life of the person whose right it is, presumably to their betterment, that is its only purpose and it is commensurate with all other rights. Rights are the guarantee by the state of a person's ability to do things and live in conditions which are considered necessary to the conduct of a fulfilling life. And just about every LGBT right that is campaigned for fits this pattern. I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't. I am assuming that changing the donation policy would require an investment of time, effort, and political capital. Because I'm sure if the blood services changed it you'd get all sorts of new "state public health laws" going up to make it illegal. If we assume you're going to invest time, money, and political capital into making that change for the benefit of improving the blood supply then I would think that there could be far more effective methods of doing that. More donation sessions, more staff so people can be seen faster, that sort of thing. Investing the effort into getting the policy changed makes sense if you consider donation to be a civil right. But again, I don't, because it doesn't fit the pattern of other rights, it is first and foremost a service to others, not a thing for the benefit of the individual. I don't think increasing the blood supply is a very effective argument and I disagree with the fundamental idea that donating blood is a right, so I don't really see much of a supporting argument for the change, or very much benefit from it. It's... nice, I guess, but just not compelling. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Marriage is a right, it has always been a right, because marriage as an institution exists to change the legal rules surrounding the life of the person whose right it is, presumably to their betterment, that is its only purpose and it is commensurate with all others rights. Rights are the guarantee by the state of a person's ability to do things and live in conditions which are considered necessary to the conduct of a fulfilling life. And just about every LGBT right that is campaigned for fits this pattern. I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't. You haven't argued a single point anyone in the thread has made, you just keep repeating the same bullshit about rights, and more donors not benefiting anyone and sunk cost fallacy idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Tone aside you are correct that I'm just repeating myself so I will stop arguing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Is it possible for a gay man to give blood to a relative that really needs it right now but there's a shortage? Not that it'd change my opinion that currently the rules are antiquated and need updating, just wondering how far this thing goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It actually does mean we should do away with screening we know is garbage, such as "if you're a man who's ever had sex with a man, you can never donate". Like, multiple countries have switched to things like only 6 month deferrals and have seen no increased rate of HIV or other nasty things in the blood that gets used for transfusion. OwlFancier posted:For the howevermanyth time, donating blood is not a right. The restriction is based on a statistical fact about HIV rates which I would much rather wasn't true, but my preference on the matter won't change whether it is or not, though with luck medical advances may, one day. EXAKT Science posted:Again, the ban, which has no reasonable medical basis at this point, contributes directly to the stigma of gay men being seen as diseased or unclean. This isn't about how blood donation is or isn't a right, it's about getting rid of a discriminatory stigma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
It sucks that you are reminded that society views you as filth every time you encounter a blood drive, but UGH EFFORT!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Wooten posted:It sucks that you are reminded that society views you as filth every time you encounter a blood drive, but UGH EFFORT! You could say the same about people who've received a tattoo or accepted money for sex. It's not supposed to be a moral judgement. In the case of banning gay men from blood donation, it's nonsense, but I don't think it's a moral judgement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You could say the same about people who've received a tattoo or accepted money for sex. It's not supposed to be a moral judgement. In the case of banning gay men from blood donation, it's nonsense, but I don't think it's a moral judgement. Exactly, but a moral judgement is all it is when there is not a statistical or scientific reason for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Exactly, but a moral judgement is all it is when there is not a statistical or scientific reason for it. The "abundance of caution" argument is a stupid one, but it's not a moral judgement. There was a valid reason for the restriction before people knew what HIV was and how to test for it, and the fact that the ban remains has more to do with institutional inertia than ongoing moral criticism. It's a stupid prohibition, but it exists for reasons other than homophobic prejudice. PT6A fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The "abundance of caution" argument is a stupid one, but it's not a moral judgement. in this context it absolutely is unless Owl also wants black people to not give blood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
PT6A posted:The "abundance of caution" argument is a stupid one, but it's not a moral judgement. It's not a moral judgement yet it can't be rationally justified? It's even the exact same argument that some people use against same sex adoption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:36
|
|