"I do not see this being a gay rights issue," said Dr. Jay Brooks, professor of pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, adding that he favors gay marriage and gays serving in the military.
It's okay; Brooks has gay friends!
"This isn't an issue just about HIV. It isn't a gay issue," he said. "This is an issue that relates to safety in the blood supply. Those decisions should be made on science, not based on societal concerns. We readily recognize the MSM [men who have sex with men] ban is discriminatory, but it's discriminatory for a reason.
The policy, it said, is "based on scientific data that show that certain medical, behavioral and geographical factors are associated with increased risk of transfusion transmitted diseases."
You know what else is statistically a risk for HIV? Being a straight black woman. I dare them to even consider that ban.
According to Wikipedia (the HIV article is very well-cited): In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act... The rate for receptive anal intercourse is much higher, 1.7% per act.This is, of course, without protection. And doesn't take into account differing sexual behaviours. So there is reason for the ban
( ... )
The Red Cross would not support lifting the ban if it had not been thoroughly investigated. They stand to lose their credibility and the trust of their donors and recipient hospitals if they allow HIV+ blood into their supply.
A ban on people who've had penetrative sex in the past two weeks would be more supportable... but good luck getting people to abstain before their donation date. I'm not even sure if HIV is transmissible two weeks post-infection... can't find any info, so assuming yes is safest.
I'm all for a vigorous review of the current standards and bans. But I wish that doctor who opposed the easing of the rule would have been asked why a HIV- man who last had gay sex in 1977 should still be banned. It's not like he's suddenly going to become positive from that 33-year-old sexual encounter. Hell, it sounds like someone who is HIV- who last had gay sex on Mother's Day would be OK to donate as well
( ... )
It seems like I read it before somewhere, but at what age does it go into effect? There are sexually active teenagers, some of whom who don't use protection, but are they exempt? Or could one night of adolescent experimentation lead to a lifetime ban?
Comments 19
"I do not see this being a gay rights issue," said Dr. Jay Brooks, professor of pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, adding that he favors gay marriage and gays serving in the military.
It's okay; Brooks has gay friends!
"This isn't an issue just about HIV. It isn't a gay issue," he said. "This is an issue that relates to safety in the blood supply. Those decisions should be made on science, not based on societal concerns. We readily recognize the MSM [men who have sex with men] ban is discriminatory, but it's discriminatory for a reason.
Just...ugh.
Reply
Reply
You know what else is statistically a risk for HIV? Being a straight black woman. I dare them to even consider that ban.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
A ban on people who've had penetrative sex in the past two weeks would be more supportable... but good luck getting people to abstain before their donation date. I'm not even sure if HIV is transmissible two weeks post-infection... can't find any info, so assuming yes is safest.
Reply
Reply
I'm a little surprised he didn't know about the ban on donating before he started working for it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment