Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in
Replies: 86 (Who?), Viewed: 19465 times.
Page 3 of 4
Top Secret Researcher
#51 Old 13th Sep 2010 at 6:35 PM
How much of the time do we have such a surplus of blood that we should be turning away potential donors for any reason? If we don't have enough (and as I understand hardly anyone anywhere has so much blood on hand that they're comfortable in their hospitals) then surely it's worth the extra cost to deploy enough extra screening of blood to allow anyone to donate who wishes to?
Mad Poster
#52 Old 13th Sep 2010 at 7:06 PM
I think in many cases it's an issue of timing. With HIV, it takes something like 3 months for it to show up on tests after being contracted. So if a person donates who has recently contracted it and doesn't know it, then there's a chance it won't be picked up by screening before being given to someone. If the shortage is that bad do medical facilities have 3 months to spare whilst they wait for additional tests?

I agree that organisations should refuse donations from people that fall into high risk groups, but this should be anyone who puts themselves in a position where they could realistically have contracted HIV or AIDS - having any form of unprotected sex with a person of any gender, or using needles to inject drugs, for example. I think that refusing donations from men who have had sex with men is out-dated - heterosexual sex is now the primary way HIV and AIDS are transmitted.

My Sims 3 stories blog - *NEW* Heather Legacy
My Sims 3 CC blog || My MTS page
Site Helper
#53 Old 13th Sep 2010 at 7:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon&Lime
Back on topic, are drug users allowed to donate blood in most countries? Does anyone know?


It's not allowed in Canada. Here's the actual list of things that will get you permanently banned from donating blood. The contentious paragraph with regards to this thread reads as follows:

All men who have had sex with another man, even once, since 1977 are indefinitely deferred. This is based on current scientific knowledge and statistical information that shows that men who have had sex with other men are at greater risk for HIV/AIDS infection than other people.

From what I've heard lately, that's not necessarily true. I thought one of the fastest-growing groups with HIV was heterosexuals! I don't know what "current" scientific knowledge they're using, but I suspect that it may not be all that current.
Scholar
#54 Old 14th Sep 2010 at 5:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
How much of the time do we have such a surplus of blood that we should be turning away potential donors for any reason? If we don't have enough (and as I understand hardly anyone anywhere has so much blood on hand that they're comfortable in their hospitals) then surely it's worth the extra cost to deploy enough extra screening of blood to allow anyone to donate who wishes to?


Actually there has not been a shortage of blood in the UK for several years. They have to keep going on big campaigns however, because blood can only be stored for a few weeks at the most which is why it may seem that they are constantly asking for it - not because they're short, but because if they don't they might not have enough for a few weeks.

The only times they usually get short is during things like the World Cup, when people who usually donate don't because they're either drinking or busy.

Also, just to add - they don't accept drug users because of the increased risk of hepatitus/HIV etc, not because the drugs might still be in their bloodstream. As far as I'm aware, drugs don't stay in the blood very long. The blood is only a transport device - it takes drugs to where they're going, it doesn't store them. It's things like hair which retains traces.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Site Helper
#55 Old 14th Sep 2010 at 7:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon&Lime
Also, just to add - they don't accept drug users because of the increased risk of hepatitus/HIV etc, not because the drugs might still be in their bloodstream. As far as I'm aware, drugs don't stay in the blood very long. The blood is only a transport device - it takes drugs to where they're going, it doesn't store them. It's things like hair which retains traces.


That may be true for street drugs, but there are certain prescription drugs that will make you ineligible (at least temporarily).
Alchemist
#56 Old 17th Sep 2010 at 4:54 PM
no no...gay blood, people! they dont want to make their victi--i mean "patients" happy, do they?


jokes aside--
promiscuity has no singular sexuality -_-... much the same way that lies arent limited to politics.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Scholar
#57 Old 17th Sep 2010 at 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
That may be true for street drugs, but there are certain prescription drugs that will make you ineligible (at least temporarily).


Are they? But like you said that depends on how long ago it was you took them, and whether or not you injected it straight into a vein I suppose.

I'm on regular prescription medication and I have to take a dose 3 times a day so I probably won't be able to give blood.

I'm not allowed to give blood anyway. I had another tattoo done a few months ago, and you have to wait until 6 months after the tattoo was completed before you can give blood. Apparently we all have HIV too. I know I don't, I went to a reputable place which replaced the entire equipment inbetween people.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Site Helper
#58 Old 17th Sep 2010 at 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon&Lime
Are they? But like you said that depends on how long ago it was you took them, and whether or not you injected it straight into a vein I suppose.

I'm on regular prescription medication and I have to take a dose 3 times a day so I probably won't be able to give blood.

I'm not allowed to give blood anyway. I had another tattoo done a few months ago, and you have to wait until 6 months after the tattoo was completed before you can give blood. Apparently we all have HIV too. I know I don't, I went to a reputable place which replaced the entire equipment inbetween people.


Yeah, there are apparently some medications that can stay in your system for a long time. The site I previously linked says that there are even certain drugs that can make you ineligible to donate bone marrow for six months!

I know there are some antibiotics that can last in the system for up to a month or so. But if you're on antibiotics, they probably don't want your blood anyway, because you're sick.

As for the tattoos, just be glad they don't ban you altogether. I think the six-month waiting period is due to the fact that sometimes HIV won't show up on tests right away. After six months, the tests will be more reliable.
Mad Poster
#59 Old 18th Sep 2010 at 10:09 AM
It's the same with piercings - you have to wait 6 months, and would most definitely be because HIV takes months to show up on tests. They're not expecting people to have contracted HIV from their tattoo/piercing - anyone who has had a needled poked through their skin is told they have to wait before donating - however not all studios are as clean as they should be. Sterlisation is really important yet unfortunately the professions aren't regulated (they should be, I think it's appalling that they aren't) meaning they aren't going to get regular cleanliness checks. And until piercing guns are banned, the people who get pierced with them are always at risk as the stupid things can't be sterilised properly.

For the medication, it probably does depend on what it does and how it affects you as to whether you can donate. They don't rule out everyone who has taken anything within the last x weeks, just certain medication - women aren't turned away for taking the contraceptive pill, for example.

My Sims 3 stories blog - *NEW* Heather Legacy
My Sims 3 CC blog || My MTS page
Field Researcher
#60 Old 18th Sep 2010 at 2:02 PM
Just adding my two cents:
I really don't give a damn if blood that is going to save my life or anyone else close to me is coming from gay or non-gay person as every blood is thoroughly tested and HIV, STD's and so on affect everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, UK donor rules state:
*You should never give blood if:
You're a man who's had sex with another man, even safe sex using a condom.*
Shame, there was me thinking people are educated in the matter enough to move past that rubbish.

HK-47: Objection: I am not a problem, meatbag. You and your lack of any organized repair skills are a problem.
Scholar
#61 Old 18th Sep 2010 at 3:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
Yeah, there are apparently some medications that can stay in your system for a long time. The site I previously linked says that there are even certain drugs that can make you ineligible to donate bone marrow for six months!

I know there are some antibiotics that can last in the system for up to a month or so. But if you're on antibiotics, they probably don't want your blood anyway, because you're sick.

As for the tattoos, just be glad they don't ban you altogether. I think the six-month waiting period is due to the fact that sometimes HIV won't show up on tests right away. After six months, the tests will be more reliable.


I've met someone who contracted HIV by having a tattoo done, although it was when they were in the USA. They didn't know they had it for over a year after the tattoo was completed. It was only after extreme weightloss and general illness that they were diagnosed. Symptoms of HIV can be almost nil for a while after contracting it, so I'm amazed that it is only 6 months - especially when you considor that (the last time I heard, tests may have improved since then) a reliable result can only be taken 3 months or more after the person suspects they've been infected. Putting that into account with how long some people can go without major symptoms, I'd think the tattoo one should be longer - if it wasn't for the fact that no one in the UK at least has ever contracted HIV from a UK-based tattoo parlour. So actually, thinking about it, it is pretty fair.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Alchemist
#62 Old 18th Sep 2010 at 4:55 PM
Fine, I'll keep my blood then!
Scholar
DELETED POST
18th Sep 2010 at 5:14 PM
This message has been deleted by Black_Barook!.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#63 Old 24th Sep 2010 at 12:07 PM
Just saw this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCN...20100923?rpc=44

"1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in US cities has HIV - Nearly half are unaware of their infection"
Inventor
#64 Old 24th Sep 2010 at 1:19 PM Last edited by appelsapgodin : 24th Sep 2010 at 6:43 PM.
I think people should consider this:

Specific STD Window Periods

Gonorrhea
The incubation period for Gonorrhea is usually 2 to 7 days.

Chlamydia
The incubation period for Chlamydia is usually 2 to 6 weeks, but can be longer.

Syphilis
The incubation period for Syphilis is usually 10 to 90 days.

HIV
The window period for HIV is usually 2 weeks to 3 months, but could be up to 6 months.

Hepatitis A
The incubation period for Hepatitis A is 15 to 50 days.

Hepatitis B
The incubation period for Hepatitis B is usually 45-180 days, with an average of 60 to 90 days.

Hepatitis C
The incubation period for Hepatitis C ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months - commonly, 6 to 9 weeks.

(source: http://www.stdresource.com/concern/c1_d_3_a.php)

Of course it would have been wiser if the blood-organisations would have said they only want blood from people who are in a monogamous relationship, are tested for STDs and never take any risks in their lives and that the wording 'no gays' is very inconvenient. (Because that would exclude all hetros that are too stupid to have safe sex too, instead of throwing all gays on one big heap.)

However you cannot deny that gays are in a higher risk group for the STDs that have extremely long incubation times. (Females usually get chlamydia or gonorrhea, which are quicker detected.) These times are so long that even with extended testing you still won't catch all. So I understand the precaution, but I also think they could have explained it a bit clearer.

It is not about offending the 1 gay that could have HIV without knowing it, it is about the 1 person that could get infected blood.
Site Helper
#65 Old 24th Sep 2010 at 7:06 PM
That's a good point, but if we're going to start worrying about incubation periods like that, we'd really have to refuse all blood. You can get the hepatitises from other things besides sex. Hepatitis A is especially tricky; you can get that from eating in a restaurant! (Mind you, it's not a super dangerous disease, unless you're immunocompromised.)

I wonder if there's any way to come up with better tests that can detect these diseases while they're still incubating. That would sure be useful!
Inventor
#66 Old 24th Sep 2010 at 7:13 PM
I agree it is all tricky. But I do understand that they try to take out the biggest risk group because it is all tricky. We indeed need better tests to be able to exclude all risks. Until we do have those I guess there is nothing else to do than exclude as many risk groups as possible. (Which is not only gays, but also prostitutes, drugs users etc.)
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#67 Old 7th Nov 2011 at 6:29 AM
Behold my necromancy! The ban has been lifted!
Née whiterider
staff: administrator
#68 Old 7th Nov 2011 at 10:07 AM
Lifted in one country, at least. But, hopefully that'll encourage others to follow suit.

It's interesting, that link, HP. I was researching this topic a while back - probably to post in this thread - and it seems that in the US, gay men are still at a significantly higher risk of HIV infection than other groups. This doesn't seem to be the case elsewhere, although I've not checked every country's facts and figures. I do wonder what the reason is, though.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Scholar
#69 Old 7th Nov 2011 at 8:05 PM
I dunno. While this is a step forward, the page that Element linked to pointed out that those who have had sex with a man within the past year are still not allowed to give blood. So it isn't really a lifting of the ban on gay men donating blood - unless we're talking about celibate gay men - but more a lifting of the ban on bi-curious men giving blood. I don't understand why they can't accept blood, even from "at risk" groups, when the likelihood is that few people aware of having a blood borne disease will try to donate and they test the blood they receive, anyway.
Banned
#70 Old 7th Nov 2011 at 10:50 PM
There is nothing wrong with gay people. Their blood is not "contaminated" unless they have some sort of blood disease any straight person can get just as easy. And if a gay man who has had sex with a man in the past year isn't allowed to give blood, then how about straight men who have had sex with a woman recently? Is there really some sort of difference? From what gay friends have told me, gayness is not a choice. However that does NOT mean that being gay makes your blood bad. It is NOT a disease, it is NOT a problem. And frankly, I don't understand how gays are included in "risk groups". I really hope they get over their ignorance and realize how lucky they are someone is even donating.
Banned
#71 Old 10th Jan 2012 at 7:25 AM
I support with no gay blood.
Née whiterider
staff: administrator
#72 Old 10th Jan 2012 at 10:43 AM
It's a debate, the idea is to give reasons.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Banned
#73 Old 12th Jan 2012 at 3:04 AM
Because i dont like gays.
Top Secret Researcher
DELETED POST
12th Jan 2012 at 4:59 AM
This message has been deleted by Mistermook. Reason: No point
Lab Assistant
#74 Old 12th Jan 2012 at 5:25 AM
I work in the health care field and I've handled blood products for transfusion and have had blood borne illness education ad naeseum and I've given blood (or at least tried, my veins clotted off too quickly >>), and I'm currently in a relationship with a bisexual man, and even I agree with some of the bans put on blood donation. Not specifically towards just gay/bisexual sexually active men, but towards prostitutes and intravenous drug users. It is proven that these populations have higher incidences of such blood-borne diseases, and more often than not a person with HIV who doesn't get regular testing doesn't they're infected know until symptoms appear, which can take years after the initial flu-like symptoms of infection. Same with IV drug users and prostitutes, the risk of having blood borne illnesses they're unaware of is high and cannot be detected with routine testing until months after the infection could put people at risk. Yes, modern testing is much much better than what it was in the past where people with hemophilia receiving multiple transfusions often caught such diseases before testing and awareness, but for the time being, I would rather turn away someone who engages in risky behavior (the strongest being an IV drug users and prostitutes, I can't fully agree with gay and bisexual men, but I do understand why that ban exists) for two units of blood than give my patient with leukemia hepatitis infected blood. The risk is low, but it's there. Just my two cents. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or right, just how I feel.

Also, certain medications are not allowed. I can think of two, Plavix because this stops clotting and can affect the clotting quality of platelets when given to the recipient, and Accutane because if a pregnant woman received your Accutane-containing blood, her fetus is at risk for severe birth defects.

edit: holy crap just saw when this thread was posted sorry for keeping the necro alive!
Top Secret Researcher
#75 Old 12th Jan 2012 at 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dordracio
Because i dont like gays.


That is pretty homophobic. Not to sound rude or anything. But that was pretty much messed up.

Back to the topic. People are saying that a gay person shouldn't be allowed to donate blood. Alright, so, then do they not take in the fact hat heterosexuals too have HIV? Because if that's the case then ALL people shouldn't donate blood at all, for the risk of getting HIV. No matter how hard they test someone's blood there is a chance that HIV or any other Pathogen can be found in the blood.

Yes, we have come along way into finding HIV and other pathogens in the blood, before they give it to hospitals, but there is that chance, they have missed it. HIV takes about 10 years to show any signs of having it. But that can change with everyone's different chemistry make up. We are not perfect none of us are.

So, we shouldn't just go for one group of people. They need to be honest and tell people if they have HIV or not. It shouldn't be based on sexuality. Because not all homosexuals have HIV nor does all heterosexuals have HIV. A lot of people don't know they HIV until like I want to say 10 years after getting it. Because that is when the signs begin to appear. Truth of the matter, just because he lied about his Sexuality then to get fined, is pretty messed up. Just sayin'

"Queen of the Damned seeks knight in shining piercings for pleasure, pain and purring"--Scary Mary from the Urbz: Sims In The City

"A Famous Explorer once said: 'The extraordinary is in what we do, not who we are.'"--Lara Croft from Tomb Raider 2013
Page 3 of 4
Back to top

Section jump