Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 156
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Uh, now we know where your username came from.
    I may have indulged...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #62  
    Okay, call me naive, but I don't understand the arguments here. As daThomas stated, this could all be avoided by holding the sperm for 6 months (or even a year to be extra safe) then test and release for use.

    If the safety of mother and child IS the foremost reason for this decision, I would think even the SLIGHTEST risk would need to be avoided.

    Whether homosexuals are the highest risk group for HIV or not, there are other ways of contracting the disease (prostitutes and IV drug users are extremely high risk) and the same precautions should be implemented.

    This would even eliminate the need for the extensive sexual-history screening. People are also allowed to designate donors so if shortage is a concern until the 6-month/1 year incubation period ends, they still have options.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Good question.. can anybody answer that?
    never mind found it:
    http://www.transfusionguidelines.org...=12&pageid=391


    Wouldn't make more sense to screen on unprotected sex in general?
    If you want to be save, filter those out and you are sure it is safe..
    It would probably lead to filtering out the majority of donors so maybe you should refine it to unprotected sex except in in a monogamous relation for more than X years.
    Yeah, that was a rhetorical question. :-) I think people need to realize that there is discrimination in every day life, and in the vast majority of cases, discrimination allows society to function more smoothly. For instance, we don't let children drive, buy alcohol, or vote. We don't let women into men's bathrooms and vice versa. We make high income earners pay more taxes and don't give tax deductions for charitable donations from poor people (assuming they don't itemize). We don't let high risk groups, including those previously diagnosed with aids, cancer and a host of other diseases, donate blood. There are times when those practices tend to alienate a particular group, but that is simply an unfortunate side-effect.

    This is not to say that we should blindly accept any and all discrimination, clearly we shouldn't. But to single out a particular instance (potentially) rational discrimination is call into question a greater societal practice. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but we should recognize what we are doing.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Certainly not - but it is unreasonable to look at each individual case. Overall policies are designed to deal with large numbers. Take my business for example - the "rules" pertaining to who qualifies for a loan are based on generalities. That doesn't mean exceptions are not made, but it does mean there is a framework through which we work.

    Policies are made to minimize risk - not eliminate it on a case by case basis. Your question of screening for past behavior would dictate a need to review each case individually.
    I completely disagree with this.
    Policies to "minimize" risk in other areas are fine. In the case of a mother and/or child contracting a horribly painful death causing disease, I think policies should do everything in their power to "eliminate" the risk. Though it's unrealistic to think EVERY case would be caught, eliminating ONE risk group is not taking EVERY precaution. And, before arguing that the Gay community is NOT being elimated, just detained...that's BULL. It is completely unrealistic to expect any healthy, consenting adult to abstain from sex for FIVE years.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Okay, call me naive, but I don't understand the arguments here. As daThomas stated, this could all be avoided by holding the sperm for 6 months (or even a year to be extra safe) then test and release for use.
    What about the cost incurred just to screen out a small percentage of good product from a high risk group. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

    Should donors be compensated for such at the time of contribution, or at the end of the safey zone? Perhaps donors should be required to leave a deposit to cover expenses until thier boys are deemed safe.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I may have indulged...
    Hmmmm...I'm seeing you in a whole new light. I guess all my flirting and temptation is falling on deaf ears...
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Hmmmm...I'm seeing you in a whole new light. I guess all my flirting and temptation is falling on deaf ears...
    Ouch! lol
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Hmmmm...I'm seeing you in a whole new light. I guess all my flirting and temptation is falling on deaf ears...
    Remember my nickname for you...it should all be clear.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    What about the cost incurred just to screen out a small percentage of good product from a high risk group. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

    Should donors be compensated for such at the time of contribution, or at the end of the safey zone? Perhaps donors should be required to leave a deposit to cover expenses until thier boys are deemed safe.
    Hold on...I'm thinking...
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    What about the cost incurred just to screen out a small percentage of good product from a high risk group. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

    Should donors be compensated for such at the time of contribution, or at the end of the safey zone? Perhaps donors should be required to leave a deposit to cover expenses until thier boys are deemed safe.
    What is it worth to have a healthy child? I personally would pay for that premium to ensure that it is tested. It surely seems worth it to me. We are not discussing life-saving blood -we are discussing people who want to have children. They are already willing to pay a premium.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Remember my nickname for you...it should all be clear.
    Ahhhh...so I'm the exception, I feel special...

    I'll stay off Worsa today so you can rest your fingers...
  12. #72  
    What is the policy now as far as compensation? Test then compensate...compensate then then test? Are people only donating sperm for the cash? Maybe the hold and release method would also eliminate the donors-for-profit (ie drug users?) Not compensating until the sperm is deemed "healthy" would only weed out the unethical donors? Surely, if your prime objective is donating your sperm for the sole cause of helping others in need, you can wait 6 months for the cash...
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Ahhhh...so I'm the exception, I feel special...

    I'll stay off Worsa today so you can rest your fingers...
    You can't resist...it's calling you right now. Do you hear it? "Flip...Flip..."
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    What is it worth to have a healthy child? I personally would pay for that premium to ensure that it is tested. It surely seems worth it to me. We are not discussing life-saving blood -we are discussing people who want to have children. They are already willing to pay a premium.
    Absolutely! I believe it should all be tested extensively. However I was speaking of wasted expenses incurred by accepting donations from an known high risk group, yielding less safe product.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    What is the policy now as far as compensation? Test then compensate...compensate then then test? Are people only donating sperm for the cash? Maybe the hold and release method would also eliminate the donors-for-profit (ie drug users?) Not compensating until the sperm is deemed "healthy" would only weed out the unethical donors? Surely, if your prime objective is donating your sperm for the sole cause of helping others in need, you can wait 6 months for the cash...
    Precisely, but I don't think the typical donor does it for the good of others. I think the primary motivator is cash. I also believe (don't know for sure) they are compensated at the time of donation.
  16. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #76  
    If there's a sudden shortage of sperm donations in this country, is anyone going to die from that?

    Don't get me wrong. I think women who are ready and willing to be good mothers but who otherwise have no options should have a right to benefit from the wonders of science. But no woman NEEDS to have a child to survive. So I think the comparison to blood donations here is not completely fair. Blood is needed, every day, and it is always in short supply. So holding on to it and testing it six months later is simply not practical. With sperm, there's no life-threatening shortage which procludes precaution.

    At the same time, if women are taking part in this procedure, and children are coming into the world as a result, then we do have an absolute responsibility to take EVERY precaution against the eventual harm of that woman and child. Which means that ALL sperm needs to be thoroughly tested until it is 100% grade-A stamped and certified clean. Even if it takes years.

    Which means this new restriction on gay men is medically redundant, even if you believe it "lowers the risk." All the sperm should be tested anyway, so why deny some men the right to donate--unless you want to send yet another message to the public that "gay is wrong." That's not the job of the FDA, as far as I'm concerned.

    Meanwhile, a serious question, because I really don't know this: What portion, if any, of this process, is paid for with tax payer dollars? I was under the impression that artificial insemination was largely a private corporate industry. Women pay top dollar to get good sperm, don't they? So why should the government be letting the companies that provide this service off the hook by requiring them to "screen" their donors rather than requiring them to thoroughly test the sperm they receive? Seems like they're trying to save money instead of lives.

    Taking the lowest common denominator isn't good enough if someone is going to suffer from the neglect, especially when the procedure isn't necessary in the first place.

    But I don't know. Maybe we are paying for part of this. In which case, I can at least see why the FDA is concerned, even if I completely disagree with its decision.

    And to answer someone's earlier question, I don't think it is always right to discriminate against people in order to reduce a perceived risk. Sometimes it's necessary, but that's very rare, indeed.

    I dont' think anyone here would say that people of Middle Eastern decent shouldn't be allowed to fly in airplanes, until they can prove they've abstained from killing anyone for five years.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  17. #77  
    Well...then 2 birds...

    The hold then release policy would eliminate ALL "honest" high-risk donors, not one group in particular. Then also eliminate the unethical cash motivated to boot. Again, may sound naive...but it seems like a no brainer. The above proposed method sounds like runaround gay bashing...
  18. funsnail's Avatar
    Posts
    47 Posts
    Global Posts
    51 Global Posts
    #78  
    I'm not in the medical field, but based on my experiences donating blood and general knowledge:

    Whole blood can't be frozen or stored for long periods. Freezing destroys cells. Sperm cells would certainly be a very perishable cell. The more they degrade the less likely the chance of reproduction. I don't know for sure, but I would think that storing sperm for any length of time would not be an option.

    Even if it were possible to store the sperm and maintain optimum viability, it wouldn't necessarily be possible to test it. The test is not 100% accurate and the reason they recommend a retest 6 months later is to catch those people who are infected but have not generated enough material in their bodies to detect. I don't believe that a test on cells stored in a manner designed to stop biological activity would produce a different result 6 months later.

    The real shame here is that the FDA recommendations are based on medical science and people with a political agenda are willing to risk our health to benefit their belief system. The facts are that homosexuals and IV drug users are at a much higher risk of HIV than the rest of the population. Eliminating them from the donor group greatly reduces the risk of HIV.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    I'm not in the medical field, but based on my experiences donating blood and general knowledge:

    Whole blood can't be frozen or stored for long periods. Freezing destroys cells. Sperm cells would certainly be a very perishable cell. The more they degrade the less likely the chance of reproduction. I don't know for sure, but I would think that storing sperm for any length of time would not be an option.

    Even if it were possible to store the sperm and maintain optimum viability, it wouldn't necessarily be possible to test it. The test is not 100% accurate and the reason they recommend a retest 6 months later is to catch those people who are infected but have not generated enough material in their bodies to detect. I don't believe that a test on cells stored in a manner designed to stop biological activity would produce a different result 6 months later.

    The real shame here is that the FDA recommendations are based on medical science and people with a political agenda are willing to risk our health to benefit their belief system. The facts are that homosexuals and IV drug users are at a much higher risk of HIV than the rest of the population. Eliminating them from the donor group greatly reduces the risk of HIV.
    Well said
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    I'm not in the medical field, but based on my experiences donating blood and general knowledge:

    Whole blood can't be frozen or stored for long periods. Freezing destroys cells. Sperm cells would certainly be a very perishable cell. The more they degrade the less likely the chance of reproduction. I don't know for sure, but I would think that storing sperm for any length of time would not be an option.
    Sperm has been stored for over 20 years, and still been used successfully for artificial insemination. If cryogenically frozen, chances are it would outlive you.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions