|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2005 : 14:39:25
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749977/
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 15:34:49 [Permalink]
|
Maybe. In the Netherlands gay men are excluded from donating blood, together with some other groups. I don't see it as bigotry though. When talking about diseases like AIDS, every effort should be made to stop it's spread is much as possible. Excluding high-risk groups from donating, is a way of reducing risk. And gay men are still a high risk group when talking about AIDS, at least in the Netherlands.
Edited to add some numbers: According to the 'Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu'(RIVM: roughly translates too 'National Institute for public health and environment) around 44% of all AIDS infections are caused by homoseksual/biseksual contact. However, the gay population in the Netherlands only amounts to between 5 to 8% of the population. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 05/05/2005 15:54:11 |
 |
|
|
Sintacks
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 23:26:22 [Permalink]
|
| Forsooth, it is amusing when skeptics speak on bigotry. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 00:27:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sintacks
Forsooth, it is amusing when skeptics speak on bigotry.
Indeed. Perhaps it's because we are the recipients of so much of it that it has made us yet more critical, and lots of folks just can't stand criticism however constructive it might be.
It is even more amusing when the blithers get their nonsense pointed out to them.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 02:10:42 [Permalink]
|
There are both reality and social stigma in the blood and sperm donor rules.
If you have any of a number of certain risk factors, men who have sex with men, past hepatitis even if you are not a carrier as verified by blood tests, had a needle stick in the past 6 months, been to England in the last 6 months or what ever that rule is currently, etc etc, you are asked not to donate. It makes perfect sense and is as it should be. If you feel discriminated against get over it.
On the other hand, certain groups with higher rates of at least one blood borne disease, hepatitis B are not excluded. Health care workers have higher rates of hepatitis B in certain positions like orthopedic surgeons. The elderly have higher rates of hepatitis B per capita because they have had more years to add carriers to their ranks. Persons from many countries have very high rates of hepatitis B. For these categories a negative blood test for past hepatitis B is sufficient to clear them for donation while a negative blood test for a man who has sex with men is not sufficient.
Not a perfect system after all. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 17:04:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It makes perfect sense and is as it should be.
There is the point. It doesn't actually make sense. Any person who tests negative and is in a monogomous relationship should qualify. Any person not in such a relationship, who is sexually active with multiple partners in recent timeframes, is a high risk doner regardless of orientation.
Besides, people might lie to donate, especially if they feel discriminated against. A friend of mine, who is gay (I'm not, fyi) used to donate blood every six months for the free HIV screening. He'd lie his ass off about his orientation and level of activity.
A thorough method of screening the donated blood is the only way to minimize transmission through donated blood.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 17:21:11 [Permalink]
|
| Gotta wonder if this is fundies trying to punish gays for daring to claim that they are born that way, and preventing more gays existing in future populations. Although before sperm donation existed, you'd think that gays would reproduce at rates lower than straights. Obviously it's very complex. |
trish |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 03:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
It makes perfect sense and is as it should be.
There is the point. It doesn't actually make sense. Any person who tests negative and is in a monogomous relationship should qualify. Any person not in such a relationship, who is sexually active with multiple partners in recent timeframes, is a high risk doner regardless of orientation.
Besides, people might lie to donate, especially if they feel discriminated against. A friend of mine, who is gay (I'm not, fyi) used to donate blood every six months for the free HIV screening. He'd lie his ass off about his orientation and level of activity.
A thorough method of screening the donated blood is the only way to minimize transmission through donated blood.
Well your friend is an exception and rarely bad blood gets through as well as infected organs. But there are basic principles involved that do make sense. Blood is screened with the best tests available but that doesn't mean additional measures aren't called for. For one, the concern is about the next emerging disease as well as the currently known ones.
One has to take the gay issue in context. HIV was spread needlessly via blood products after it emerged and before it was well understood because the blood bank refused the early recommendation to reject blood from persons with past hepatitis B who were no longer carriers. So with hindsight, the practice of using 'markers' for potential risk was adopted.
As to why not screen for monogamy instead of sexual orientation, the problem is, while most people tell the truth, certain questions are less reliably answered in the screening process. There are gays who lie about their sexual orientation and donate as well. There is nothing to stop them really.
Decisions about the screening process are developed using the best options. Not paying for donations is important. Refusing to give negative results to donors is done to discourage testing for free tests. Your friend was pretty dumb since free tests are available through public health programs almost everywhere, and some positive test results, if they don't indicate active disease, are not revealed to the donor until the second donation. I have to get special permission to get a donor's negative results released after they are the source of a worker's blood exposure. The blood bank would rather I re-test the person while I fight not to have to draw their blood unnecessarily.
While heterosexuals are certainly as likely to lie about numbers of partners as homosexuals, the percentage of homosexual men who engaged in risky behavior, at the time the rules were adopted was very high, especially compared to the percentage of blood donors who were not men who had sex with men. So just asking a person's sexual history is not adequate by itself. I can sympathize with a monogamous gay guy feeling he is being painted with the wrong brush. However, not to be sexist but you have to admit men have less sexual inhibitions as a whole than women. We get pregnancy, a male just spreads DNA and evolution has had its effects. When the percentage of gays with STDs becomes low enough, the blood bank can screen gays with questions and take their blood again. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 06:26:26 [Permalink]
|
I agree with the FDA rule on this one. I don't think sperm donating is a "right"; rather, it's a privilege granted by the fertility clinic, which is obligated to protect its patients. Think of the lawsuits they'd have if a patient ended up with AIDS.
Honestly, if I were a fertility patient, I'd prefer a clinic with this policy. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 07:58:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I don't think sperm donating is a "right"; rather, it's a privilege granted by the fertility clinic...
Having a job isn't a right, either, but there exist laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring.quote:
...which is obligated to protect its patients. Think of the lawsuits they'd have if a patient ended up with AIDS.
Should hospitals refuse to hire gays, then, too? They've got the same obligations, and employees with unknown HIV status pose a risk to the patients. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 08:46:44 [Permalink]
|
A job is crucial to survival in our society, Dave. Same with housing, which is why laws are in place to prevent discrimination in those areas. Sperm donation is in a completely different category; it's nonessential, to say the least.
Per the NEJM, HIV transmission from doctor to patient is exceedingly rare: http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1999/112/1.
A woman's biology makes her more susceptible to transmission of HIV. (http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/womenrev.html#3) There's also a baby (at least, potentially) to be considered here.
Also, the FDA doesn't prevent directed sperm donation in which a woman who wants a gay man's donation can receive it.
I'm surprised that anyone would argue the 'rights' of a man to donate sperm trump the safety and survival of a woman and her baby. The two aren't remotely equal.
I agree that discrimination and even bigotry against homosexuals exists. But that it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it exists in this case. To me, this is another example of unnecessarily politicizing a public health issue, IMO. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 15:10:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
It makes perfect sense and is as it should be.
There is the point. It doesn't actually make sense. Any person who tests negative and is in a monogomous relationship should qualify. Any person not in such a relationship, who is sexually active with multiple partners in recent timeframes, is a high risk doner regardless of orientation.
Besides, people might lie to donate, especially if they feel discriminated against. A friend of mine, who is gay (I'm not, fyi) used to donate blood every six months for the free HIV screening. He'd lie his ass off about his orientation and level of activity.
A thorough method of screening the donated blood is the only way to minimize transmission through donated blood.
In the Netherlands, people who have had 'loose' sexual contacts in the past 6 months (I think) are also excluded from donation. This includes sex with multiple partners. Of course, because of the possibility of lying, asking this is not foolproof. But it is one step on the way of foolproof, which includes both excluding high risk groups and performing blood tests. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 16:02:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course, because of the possibility of lying, asking this is not foolproof.
Nope. And the issue is that the donated product (blood/plasma/sperm/organs) needs to be screened, not the actual doner/s.
It makes no sense to screen people out based on sexual preference, and makes all the sense in the world to actually test the content being donated.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 18:19:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
A job is crucial to survival in our society, Dave. Same with housing, which is why laws are in place to prevent discrimination in those areas. Sperm donation is in a completely different category; it's nonessential, to say the least.
Nevertheless, your argument began with "this isn't a right." Neither jobs nor housing are rights, either. Many things people find essential are not rights, so the fact that sperm donation isn't a right is irrelevant.quote:
Per the NEJM, HIV transmission from doctor to patient is exceedingly rare:
Are there any statistics on nurse-to-patient transmission? Or janitorial staff-to-patient transmission? Or am I supposed to assume that those two cases represent the only two documented cases of health-care workers spreading HIV?
But, the answer to those questions is really irrelevant, since the risk is not zero, as mentioned in the article itself.quote:
I'm surprised that anyone would argue the 'rights' of a man to donate sperm trump the safety and survival of a woman and her baby. The two aren't remotely equal.
Good thing nobody here is doing that, then. If you think my post was about defending a non-existent right, you're mistaken.quote:
I agree that discrimination and even bigotry against homosexuals exists. But that it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it exists in this case. To me, this is another example of unnecessarily politicizing a public health issue, IMO.
Oh, it seems to be a clear-cut case of discrimination, and the FDA's got a reason for it, too. Other people here think that the more-reasonable discrimination is against promiscuous people of any sexual orientation, though, just like sperm banks (I imagine) discriminate against IV drug users.
The debate here is not about whether or not this represents a case of discrimination, but whether or not the discriminitory "line" is drawn in the correct place. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2005 : 18:52:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave, the next time I go to post anything at all on any subject, I'll simply post:
"the sky is blue"
and you can argue with me over that. You can explain to me that the sky isn't technically blue; that we only perceive it as blue and that you never said that it was blue and that if I think you said it was blue then I just don't get it--and even if it was blue, it's not relevant anyway.
And I'm sure you'll argue over *this* concept, too, and I'll get another blow-by-blow analysis of how no matter what I said or how I said it, I was just *wrong*. So let me acknowledge for you here that whatever I think about anything is WRONG, including this very sentence, and you are, or course, right.
I've had enough. See ya. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2005 : 04:29:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Of course, because of the possibility of lying, asking this is not foolproof.
Nope. And the issue is that the donated product (blood/plasma/sperm/organs) needs to be screened, not the actual doner/s.
It makes no sense to screen people out based on sexual preference, and makes all the sense in the world to actually test the content being donated.
Both are being done, as the screening of blood also isn't foolproof and you want to reduce risks as much as possible. It is irresponsible to get samples from a group of which you know the risk of infection is very high, especially with infections like HIV of which you know that the effects are so serious. In that sense, it makes every sense to exclude people of a group which is at high risk, and making up around 50% of the infections when the group only consists of 5 to 10% of the entire population definitely qualifies as a high risk. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
