Skip to main content

View Diary: More good news on the LGBT front: HIV travel ban to be lifted soon (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Long past due, indeed. (8+ / 0-)

    The ban's been weirdly anachronistic for a good decade now.  Fortunately it'll soon be in the trash bin where it belongs.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:53:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I had no idea... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, Albatross, Curiosity

      ... it was still in effect, because it seems so retrograde and regressive .. and, as you point out, so anachronistic!

      •  gays still can't give blood either nt (6+ / 0-)
        •  there are plenty of str8s who can who live a far (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pico, dharmafarmer

          higher risk life than I do.  I once was a regular b ut have been banned for a long time. I am negative for all-- Hep C, HIV, etc and can't but a srt8 that is promiscuous and unsafe in practice is not even really questioned.  It is very degrading and  this policy is long past reconsideration.

          Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice won't get fooled again. George Bush

          by ganymeade on Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 08:06:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ganymeade

            The FDA's page on this borders on condescending.

            While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.

            Let those numbers sink in: < 1 in a million means < 20 out of 20,000,000 infusions might miss the virus.  Then take the percentage of gay men who might be infected (this is a hard number to pinpoint, but let's say 10%).  I'm not a numbers man, so correct me if I'm wrong: this means that you could have a million HIV+ gay men give blood and risk roughly a single case of infection; since HIV+ cases make up 10% of total cases, that means you could have 10,000,000 donors total before you meet the same risk.  Even if the percentage of gay men with HIV is exponentially higher, say 30%, you could still have, what, 33,000 donors before you run the risk of a single missed screen?

            I cannot imagine this is worth all the blood shortages.  But I think the FDA is terrified that a single case of infection would bring back the anti-gay stigma in full force.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:27:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, that one kills me. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dharmafarmer

          I used to donate regularly until I became an 'active' homosexual.  As a married man, I know I pose a major health risk, heh.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 10:13:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site