Lion Heart 15,041 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Gay and bisexual men in the United States are no longer barred from donating blood, under a policy change announced Monday by the Food and Drug Administration, but there's a big catch: Men still cannot donate if they have had sex with other men in the previous 12 months. While the new policy lifts a ban in place for more than 30 years, since the early days of the HIV and AIDS epidemic, it effectively stops sexually active gay men from donating. But the change puts the policy for gay and bisexual men in line with other potential donors at increased risk for HIV, such as recent transfusion recipients, FDA officials said. "The FDA's responsibility is to maintain a high level of blood product safety for people whose lives depend on it," FDA acting commissioner Stephen Ostroff said in a statement. "We have taken great care to ensure this policy revision is backed by sound science and continues to protect our blood supply." The risk of getting HIV from a blood transfusion in the United States today is about 1 in 1.47 million, FDA said. .. Anyone who has ever tested positive for HIV, exchanged sex for drugs or money, or injected illicit drugs is still barred from giving blood. Read full story: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/21/fda-gay-men-blood-donors/77703614/ ▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEXI 250 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 About time thought I was born in a league of my own | but I'm sinking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batwings 12,957 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The headline... and then the article's contents... "YAAAAY! ... Wait... Ugh..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 A symbolic victory that hardly changes anything in practice. All I expected, all that was necessary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM98GJ 3,086 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I think the restriction for 12 months still restricts a large amount of the community but at least it's moving in the right direction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 2 minutes ago, AM98GJ said: I think the restriction for 12 months still restricts a large amount of the community but at least it's moving in the right direction It's a good rule though. The risk is way too high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artRaver 3,188 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 12 minutes ago, AM98GJ said: I think the restriction for 12 months still restricts a large amount of the community but at least it's moving in the right direction Yeah, I agree. I brought up that point on a news article on Facebook and people got mad. I mean if hetrosexual people can donate blood without waiting a certain amount of time why can't homosexuals. The disease ain't bulletproof for nobody, smh. ✿ cherry blossom girl ✿ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petty 9,412 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 7 minutes ago, artRaver said: off topic, but if that is you in your display. you are STUNNING Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lum 347 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 fuccccckkkkk this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM98GJ 3,086 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 28 minutes ago, Didymus said: It's a good rule though. The risk is way too high. Can you explain why? (Not trying to start an argue I'm genuinely inquiring), I always thought they could just test the person, and find out if they're positive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Child 18,997 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 12 months without sex? ‘If religion be the cause of disunity, then irreligion is surely to be preferred.’ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 7 minutes ago, AM98GJ said: Can you explain why? (Not trying to start an argue I'm genuinely inquiring), I always thought they could just test the person, and find out if they're positive. They could. This ban is only there due to irrational fears remaining from the time of the AIDS epidemic. While this new reduction is...something, it has literally no practical value at all. Some proponents argue that even with those tests, there is still a significant risk. That's idiotic, considering sex between any two people always carries a risk of STDs. If anything, people of any sexual orientation should be banned from donating blood if they'd have sex within two weeks and haven't been tested. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 4 minutes ago, AM98GJ said: Can you explain why? (Not trying to start an argue I'm genuinely inquiring), I always thought they could just test the person, and find out if they're positive. HIV doesn't show up immediately on tests after infection. Even if three months after the date of possible infection you have a negative result, you should still get tested three months later, making a total period of six months in which the infection might appear on tests. Some bodies just take longer to create antibodies to the disease, which is what the tests have to pick up. That's why this rule is there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM98GJ 3,086 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said: They could. This ban is only there due to irrational fears remaining from the time of the AIDS epidemic. While this new reduction is...something, it has literally no practical value at all. Some proponents argue that even with those tests, there is still a significant risk. That's idiotic, considering sex between any two people always carries a risk of STDs. If anything, people of any sexual orientation should be banned from donating blood if they'd have sex within two weeks and haven't been tested. That was my line of thinking, it seems to be an improvement at face value but it still excludes the vast majority of the community Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Just now, AM98GJ said: That was my line of thinking, it seems to be an improvement at face value but it still excludes the vast majority of the community Vast is an understatement in itself. Celibacy is rare for any adult, much less a gay one. Men Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.