Donating blood: my ethical dilemma- Page 2

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/16/20 at 12:07am

Phantom of London said: "I take it this is all about HIV or Aids?

Why cannot a gay man donate blood it HIV viral load in his blood is undetectable?"

Hey, if you wanna be the one to guinea pig taking pints of undetectable HIV positive blood be my guest... Untransmittable currently only means via unprotected sex. Other vectors don't have data supporting them at this time.

 

 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/16/20 at 12:35am

Yeah, it means it's not detectable on standard blood tests and you cannot infect others. It's a completely different thing than donating HIV+ blood. But, they do 9 tests on blood in America, if it's contaminated they immediately discard it and notify you of the reason the blood cannot be used. 

Updated On: 12/16/20 at 12:35 AM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/16/20 at 2:25pm

 https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html

Updated On: 12/16/20 at 02:25 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/17/20 at 3:25pm

A hospital will only give you a blood transfusion if your life is at risk.

HIV is a manageable condition now, so I know what I would prefer of the two.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/17/20 at 4:54pm

They would never give you contaminated HIV positive blood in any first world country though, so no worries there. 

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/19/20 at 4:07pm

100% agree with you. Just wanted to point out that blood isn’t given unless your life is at risk and that HIV is now a manageable condition So for us both there is no ‘ethical dilemma.’ It is wrong to discriminate on gay men giving blood in today’s age.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/19/20 at 11:32pm

There is a huge difference between "gay men shouldn't be discriminated against from giving blood" to "HIV is manageable so it should be ok to use HIV+ blood in a transfusion."

It's also "manageable" if you have health insurance. Otherwise you could be looking at a wide range of costs, but still potentially out of the price range of many people.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/20/20 at 1:52pm

>100% agree with you. Just wanted to point out that blood isn’t given unless your life is at risk and that HIV is now a manageable condition So for us both there is no ‘ethical dilemma.’ It is wrong to discriminate on gay men giving blood in today’s age.

In no first world country would you be given blood that was untested for any potential bloodborne illness. It's never even getting to the hospital where it would be administered without those tests. There's no emergency where you're going to be given blood straight out of another person. It's insane. So like Sutton said, you're citing a Sophie's Choice that doesn't exist.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/20/20 at 9:57pm

Sutton already made the point that blood being used is tested for HIV, so you cannot catch HIV from a blood transfusion, I completely get that. So no need in this day and age to discriminate against Gay men. So no I am not citing a Sophie Choice and never suggested that blood would be transferred straight from a person to another person. Again I am merely suggesting HIV is a manageable illness with the right therapy, 

Saying that in a very massive catastrophe it is possible unscreened blood could be used, but this would be the very last resort. You wouldn’t let someone die, rather than catch hepatitis.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/20/20 at 10:37pm

It would not matter if we had a national catastrophe. ALL blood is screened. It's the law. 

Updated On: 12/20/20 at 10:37 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/21/20 at 3:45pm

That’s all very fine and dandy. What do you do if you run out of screened blood, your not going to let someone die?

Also what I said earlier if a man with HIV can have unprotected sex, because his viral load is undetectable, then it would be safe for him to be a blood donor.

Updated On: 12/21/20 at 03:45 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/21/20 at 4:23pm

Your "what if" would never happen, so it's impossible to answer. This is America, we don't give people blood that isn't screened. Period.

As for your second point? Nope. Couldn't be more wrong. For the final time, just because he cannot pass it along to other people does NOT mean his blood will be accepted. When their blood is tested, it would simply be discarded. I don't know how many times I can say this for you to believe it. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/21/20 at 4:23pm

Your "what if" would never happen, so it's impossible to answer. This is America, we don't give people blood that isn't screened. Period.

As for your second point? Nope. Couldn't be more wrong. For the final time, just because he cannot pass it along to other people does NOT mean his blood will be accepted. When their blood is tested, it would simply be discarded. I don't know how many times I can say this for you to believe it. 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/21/20 at 8:49pm

>Also what I said earlier if a man with HIV can have unprotected sex, because his viral load is undetectable, then it would be safe for him to be a blood donor.

There is NO data to support this. Undetectable means you cannot pass it via unprotected sex. You can't give blood. If you take an HIV Test you WILL still come back positive. Viral load is the amount of virus, but they can still see you have the virus.

>That’s all very fine and dandy. What do you do if you run out of screened blood, your not going to let someone die?

What the **** do you mean? Unless we are living in a Mad Max Dystopia you will NEVER and I mean NEVER give someone unscreened blood. If a Hospital is out of blood and can't get some in time & someone is bleeding out yes THEY ARE GOING TO DIE. 

[Trendigitaltech]

Posted: 12/23/20 at 1:40pm

Always try to Donate blood and they will inform you properly.