219,000 pints of blood, 900 organs.
That's a lot.
Guess we'll see what the FDA says at the end of next week.
Those numbers actually seem kinda low to me, but I have no idea what percentage of people donate blood. I thought it was high.
Waitwaitwait, organ donation is banned? I didn't know that.
Me neither. But I'm not bitter. Nope, not at all. 'cause we all know that the FDA just loves me. [MESSAGE REDACTED].
Edit: I should point out that I just checked, and it's not an out-right ban, it's a five-year deferral. That is, if you're a man who has had sex with a man in the last five years, your organs are ineligible for donation. ... because clearly, it takes five years before they can test for HIV or Hepatitis B. Which they test all organs for.
Those numbers actually seem kinda low to me, but I have no idea what percentage of people donate blood. I thought it was high.
Well, it helps to remember that of the adult HIV-negative population, only about 5% actually donate blood. That is to say, blood donors are actually kinda rare, and there's not much reason to suspect gay donors would be any better about it (though if the FDA removes the ban entirely, I can see blood drives along with Pride happening by next year. I know that I'd hit up the universities' GSA and encourage them to help drive people towards a campus blood drive.)
That said, the study is actually pretty short and to the point, and is pretty understandable. Only four pages, and one of those is nothing but citations.
Edit: I should point out that I just checked, and it's not an out-right ban, it's a five-year deferral. That is, if you're a man who has had sex with a man in the last five years, your organs are ineligible for donation.
I imagine the people who make the decision don't always know if you are.
I mean, I know that it's possible to do some organ donation without dying first, but I'm almost certain it's the less common type.
And again, how strictly do they define "sex"?
Well, it helps to remember that of the adult HIV-negative population, only about 5% actually donate blood.
Okay, yeah, much lower than I thought it was. Answers that question.
I must know an unusually high amount of people who donate blood or somethin'. Always seemed I was the odd one out.
That said, the study is actually pretty short and to the point, and is pretty understandable. Only four pages, and one of those is nothing but citations.
Oh, I read the article but I overlooked the link to the actual study. I'll take a look.
I imagine the people who make the decision don't always know if you are.
I mean, I know that it's possible to do some organ donation without dying first, but I'm almost certain it's the less common type.
Apparently it's standard practice to question the deceased's surviving family. I was looking through the FDA's guidelines about acceptable organ donations and some of this stuff really does require them asking someone some rather personal questions about the deceased. That's gotta be great. "Now, I know you're still grieving about the loss of your father, but we have some questions. Did he go to a prostitute or prostitute himself anytime in the last 12 months?"
Apparently it's standard practice to question the deceased's surviving family.
I assumed there was a questionare, since the family needs to give their permission if the deceased has not agreed to be an organ donar before dying.
I merely think there are probably a large number of cased where they don't know. I mean, who has the ability to give that permission? Spouse and parents mostly, right? Yeah.
And the study also doesn't seem to take into account men who donated in spite of the ban, although I suppose I have no idea how they could try to estimate that.
My organs will probably be too wasted to use...
Ha Ha...
My organs will probably be too wasted to use...
Heh. Yeah, I think I'm in the same boat. My eyes are useless, my lungs are likely damaged, my ligaments and the like have seen a crapton of use and my liver? Well, it very well may be half my body weight right now, so I don't think it'll work.
I am a donor, though. I mean, if I'm dead I don't have any use for that stuff so why not help someone that may? Too bad I also believe that, since we're only here for a short time, we may as well get the most out of our stuff that we can. I donate blood when there's a drive around here and my health problems don't prevent me from it.
One drop for each gallon, and I was trying for a third drop before I hit 40, but it's looking like I'll have to put in a lot of effort to lose weght before I can donate again...
They can have my organs, for whatever they're worth, but I ain't quite done using them yet...
On that note, the Navy did the same thing, at least while my father was still in.
________
1I have no idea if they would discharge a person over acquiring it after joining up though.
Since they don't let in people with HIV/AIDS1, that's probably a pretty good way to avoid that particular hurdle.
On that note, the Navy did the same thing, at least while my father was still in.
________
1I have no idea if they would discharge a person over acquiring it after joining up though.
Soldiers are tested, I believe its twice a year (could be wrong though) and if they are found to be postitive they can't be deployed but instead remain at their present post.
Figures. A man that has unprotected sex with as many women as he can get to take him so long as money doesn't change hands can still donate, but a clean guy like me with only a single man in my life can't.
So cool.
[link]
Figures. A man that has unprotected sex with as many women as he can get to take him so long as money doesn't change hands can still donate, but a clean guy like me with only a single man in my life can't.
You shouldn't have to, but, just lie. It's none of their concern.
Wait, wait, wait... it's illegal to donate gay blood? I thought it was just men who have had sex with other men.
?
It is not illegal to donate gay blood, it is illegal to be actively gay and donate blood. I think it may actually be illegal to even be gay in some places, so I would think that needs to change first.
I suppose it depends how they phrase the question.
Edit: Saw your edit, thanks. The wording of the article confused me for a sec.