Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

danshapiro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#71

Post by StavrosK »

jacoblyles wrote: post #42
StavrosK wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half the people with HIV might be gay, but half the gay people don't have HIV. The statistic you quoted is not the one we need to ascertain whether the reason for turning them down is valid or not.

That's true. I can't say whether or not the health bureaus' policies are justified as I am not an expert. But I can guess that it is not unreasonable that they would treat gay males and gay females differently. There is probably some testing regime that could be implemented that would allow tissue and serum donation programs to be blind to sexual behavior.

Oh, definitely. I'm just saying that that statistic is irrelevant to that particular point.

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#72

Post by Dove »

icebraining wrote: post #46
radu_floricica wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the math in another discussion in another forum, and it's actually sensible to turn away gay people. From their point of view the goal is to get as many blood donations as possible, while minimizing the risk of disease. They couldn't give a f*ck about anything else. Couldn't find all the numbers I was looking for, but it turns out 61% of infections in US are through male-to-male sexual contact. This probabl…

Yes, but if one has recent test results showing that he's not infected, blindly turning him down anyway makes no sense.

Actually, it does. Recent test results aren't useful with HIV; it can remain undetectable for months.

It's a question of perspective. You might be certain enough of your and your partner's fidelity over the last year to bet a stranger's life on it. But they aren't confident enough in a stranger's assertion of marital fidelity to bet their patient's life on it.

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#73

Post by timr »

Dove wrote: post #66
heimidal wrote: post #17

This inspired me to register, but once again I was thwarted by the US' arcane rule banning gay men from donating. The rule applies despite the fact that I've been monogamous for ages and am tested for everything under the sun twice a year. A college frat boy who has had unprotected sex with a different girl every week for the past semester can give blood/marrow, but monogamous, healthy gay men can't. I don't get it.

It's the same reason they tested me for STDs when I got pregnant, even though I married a virgin as a virgin and we have been faithful forever. It's not about what you believe about yourself and your partner. It's about the statistics. Someone else's life is on the line. They need to be sure . Though I must admit, I'm surprised the policy is in place with marrow donations. With blood donations, sure, transfusions are…

If someone needs a bone marrow transplant, their immune system is severely compromised (effectively eliminated). If they're given marrow from an infected donor, they'd have no way to fight off the resulting infection. It would be a death sentence.

On the other hand, many people who need a marrow transplant have some flexibility as to when they can get the donation. This is why the guidelines are so strict: the risk/reward ratio is balanced in favor of caution.

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#75

Post by hogu »

thechut wrote: post #37
itsnotvalid wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to pay for mail forwarding and in case for a address that old it probably didn't really something worthwhile. But we have email addresses now.

I recently changed my address and USPS charged me $1 to file the online mail forwarding form but I believe it's free if you go the post office or mail in the form (requires stamp). They will forward all mail to the new address for 18 months. After that I believe you can get a year extension but that will probably cost you another $1.

they claim thats there to verify you are really you who is trying to change the address.

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#76

Post by rokhayakebe »

heimidal wrote: post #17

This inspired me to register, but once again I was thwarted by the US' arcane rule banning gay men from donating. The rule applies despite the fact that I've been monogamous for ages and am tested for everything under the sun twice a year. A college frat boy who has had unprotected sex with a different girl every week for the past semester can give blood/marrow, but monogamous, healthy gay men can't. I don't get it.

The problem with monogamy is that you can guarantee you are, but you cannot guarantee your partner is.

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#78

Post by aplusbi »

Dove wrote: post #66
heimidal wrote: post #17

This inspired me to register, but once again I was thwarted by the US' arcane rule banning gay men from donating. The rule applies despite the fact that I've been monogamous for ages and am tested for everything under the sun twice a year. A college frat boy who has had unprotected sex with a different girl every week for the past semester can give blood/marrow, but monogamous, healthy gay men can't. I don't get it.

It's the same reason they tested me for STDs when I got pregnant, even though I married a virgin as a virgin and we have been faithful forever. It's not about what you believe about yourself and your partner. It's about the statistics. Someone else's life is on the line. They need to be sure . Though I must admit, I'm surprised the policy is in place with marrow donations. With blood donations, sure, transfusions are…

It's not just about statistics. For blood donations, if I had unprotected sex with a different HIV infected partner every day for a year, then stopped doing this for a year and one day, I would be eligible to donate blood.

If, however, I had sex with a man once in the last 30 years I am not eligible.

Why is it more sensible to turn away gay people then it is to turn away people who have regularly exposed themselves to HIV?

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#79

Post by blhack »

dionidium wrote: post #64
blhack wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why in the world would you vote this down? Because it's spreading misinformation that could prevent people from becoming marrow donors. As a way of balancing this, here: http://marrow.org/Home.aspx They'll send you a free kit. You swab your cheek, mail it back, and then you're in the registry. Take five of your minutes and give them to somebody that needs them.

Because it's spreading misinformation that could prevent people from becoming marrow donors. It might prevent people from becoming donors, sure, but it's not misinformation. You may think that the risks are small relative to the benefit provided, but you shouldn't pretend (or try to convince others) that there are none. Take five of your minutes and give them to somebody that needs them. It takes five minutes to regi…

I think you're confused about a couple of things here.

1) I'm saying to take five minutes and register as a potential donor. If you're found as a match, you're not required to donate. You then get to chose if you want to donate more of your minutes.

2) You're vastly overstating the liklihood that you'd have to undergo surgery to donate bone marrow. This is typically referred to as FUD, and is generally considered a bad thing to do.

Re: Saving a Life is Easy, But I Didn't

#80

Post by aplusbi »

radu_floricica wrote: post #45
tomjen3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the same shit for blood donations in Denmark. They got pretty unpopular when they asked for more donors because they feared a shortage but then turned away the gay men. And no, it is not for health issues because they don't turn away gay women. Of course you could register if you want to and then if called upon show up eagerly with your partner for moral support. Then flat out ask if they are going to kill thei…

I've seen the math in another discussion in another forum, and it's actually sensible to turn away gay people. From their point of view the goal is to get as many blood donations as possible, while minimizing the risk of disease. They couldn't give a f*ck about anything else. Couldn't find all the numbers I was looking for, but it turns out 61% of infections in US are through male-to-male sexual contact. This probabl…

The problem isn't with the fact that they turn down gay men. The problem is that they turn down gay men while accepting people who have regularly exposed themselves to HIV, as long as they haven't done that within the past 12 months.
Post reply on HN