And now the FDA wants to use the same asinine rules for sperm donation as for blood donation

[conuly]

Instead of testing donors to make sure they're not sick, they'd rather just exclude a huge swath of the population from donating.

Brilliant plan, guys. Really.

Comments

[ciara-belle.livejournal.com]

I really don't get the logic of this. If they're going to exclude people, wouldn't it make more sense to exclude anyone who is having lots of unprotected sex? It's not like straight people don't get AIDS too.

*headdesk*

[conuly]

In fact, the fastest growing group of people with AIDS are straight women*

*_{That may be straight black women, I can't recall.}

[leora.livejournal.com]

Why bother? They already don't exclude people who are severely ill with no clear cause and no knowledge of whether the problem is contagious. As long as you meet the sexual requirements, the travel requirements, the genetic history requirements, and do not clearly have anything known to be a problem, you can give blood despite having a clear medical problem of unknown nature.

[conuly]

Might I continue and say YES THAT IS STUPID! here?

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

You mean how my living in Europe excludes me from donating blood?

Although I will say, big freakin deal, sperm isn't something you need to live...

[conuly]

Although I will say, big freakin deal, sperm isn't something you need to live...

Yes, and? Does that make discrimination acceptable? Marriage isn't something one needs to live either, and yet.... Neither is military service.

You mean how my living in Europe excludes me from donating blood?

Yes, exactly. That's another stupid rule.

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

Err, it's not *that* large a segment of the population...

And I'm sorry, but I have to agree with it - when you have an already risky procedure, you want to eliminate the known parts that make it even riskier. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable accepting something (blood, sperm, whatever) from a place that I knew accepted higher risks.

Safety first.

[conuly]

Excuse me? 10% (at least. Could be higher, as this number doesn't include bisexuals) isn't a large segment of the population?

Excuse me? A gay man in a committed relationship is more of a risk than a straight man who will admit he's seen several prostitutes and has lots of fun at parties?

Excuse me? Forbidding certain groups from donating is safer than simply testing all donors?

[leora.livejournal.com]

The rules aren't well-based on safety. Protected sex with a bisexual or homosexual isn't a big risk, and you can test for the known risks. Meanwhile, people like me are free to give blood. They haven't found any cause for why I became extremely fatigued, went blind, and had lots of other things suddenly go wrong, so I'm perfectly allowed to give blood if my sexual and travel history allows it. Because they didn't find anything wrong with the blood that they can detect. They don't know it to be contagious. So, it's okay.

Enjoy your heterosexual blood supply. :)

[thornleaf.livejournal.com]

Y'know... my brain automatically assumed the 'risky behaviour' in question was something like drug use or alcohol abuse, and I thought "well, now, hang on, that kinda makes sense, because an addictive personality can be genetically based, and, well, I can understand not wanting the sperm of a potential addict...

well.

Other things might be genetic as well, and I think that, much more than an attempt to keep infectious sperm out of the, er, sperm pool... this is a thinly-veiled way to assure people that their precious offspring have less chance of being gay.

Makes me sick.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

But then they would have to admit homosexuality is genetic, and that to discriminate against people just because they were born that way is wrong.

Remember, the Christians especially push that homosexuality is a choice.

They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

[fascinoma.livejournal.com]

I had a (safe, non-bodily-fluid-exchanging - but they wouldn't know the difference) encounter with a bisexual male, a few times. I often feel bad about it, even though I don't regret the experience, because I can't give blood, and I feel really guilty/selfish for doing something that makes me a nonviable blood donor.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I just checked the Red Cross web site, and I had misremembered the rules. It looks like if you wait 12 months after contact and tests come out clean, you will be eligible again, barring any other issues.

[ciara-belle.livejournal.com]

I really don't get the logic of this. If they're going to exclude people, wouldn't it make more sense to exclude anyone who is having lots of unprotected sex? It's not like straight people don't get AIDS too.

*headdesk*

[conuly]

In fact, the fastest growing group of people with AIDS are straight women*

*_{That may be straight black women, I can't recall.}

[leora.livejournal.com]

Why bother? They already don't exclude people who are severely ill with no clear cause and no knowledge of whether the problem is contagious. As long as you meet the sexual requirements, the travel requirements, the genetic history requirements, and do not clearly have anything known to be a problem, you can give blood despite having a clear medical problem of unknown nature.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

You mean how my living in Europe excludes me from donating blood?

Although I will say, big freakin deal, sperm isn't something you need to live...

[conuly]

Although I will say, big freakin deal, sperm isn't something you need to live...

Yes, and? Does that make discrimination acceptable? Marriage isn't something one needs to live either, and yet.... Neither is military service.

You mean how my living in Europe excludes me from donating blood?

Yes, exactly. That's another stupid rule.

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

Err, it's not *that* large a segment of the population...

And I'm sorry, but I have to agree with it - when you have an already risky procedure, you want to eliminate the known parts that make it even riskier. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable accepting something (blood, sperm, whatever) from a place that I knew accepted higher risks.

Safety first.

[conuly]

Excuse me? 10% (at least. Could be higher, as this number doesn't include bisexuals) isn't a large segment of the population?

Excuse me? A gay man in a committed relationship is more of a risk than a straight man who will admit he's seen several prostitutes and has lots of fun at parties?

Excuse me? Forbidding certain groups from donating is safer than simply testing all donors?

[leora.livejournal.com]

The rules aren't well-based on safety. Protected sex with a bisexual or homosexual isn't a big risk, and you can test for the known risks. Meanwhile, people like me are free to give blood. They haven't found any cause for why I became extremely fatigued, went blind, and had lots of other things suddenly go wrong, so I'm perfectly allowed to give blood if my sexual and travel history allows it. Because they didn't find anything wrong with the blood that they can detect. They don't know it to be contagious. So, it's okay.

Enjoy your heterosexual blood supply. :)

[thornleaf.livejournal.com]

Y'know... my brain automatically assumed the 'risky behaviour' in question was something like drug use or alcohol abuse, and I thought "well, now, hang on, that kinda makes sense, because an addictive personality can be genetically based, and, well, I can understand not wanting the sperm of a potential addict...

well.

Other things might be genetic as well, and I think that, much more than an attempt to keep infectious sperm out of the, er, sperm pool... this is a thinly-veiled way to assure people that their precious offspring have less chance of being gay.

Makes me sick.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

But then they would have to admit homosexuality is genetic, and that to discriminate against people just because they were born that way is wrong.

Remember, the Christians especially push that homosexuality is a choice.

They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

[fascinoma.livejournal.com]

I had a (safe, non-bodily-fluid-exchanging - but they wouldn't know the difference) encounter with a bisexual male, a few times. I often feel bad about it, even though I don't regret the experience, because I can't give blood, and I feel really guilty/selfish for doing something that makes me a nonviable blood donor.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I just checked the Red Cross web site, and I had misremembered the rules. It looks like if you wait 12 months after contact and tests come out clean, you will be eligible again, barring any other issues.