Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 156
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Flip seems awfully concerned about *****...
    LOL

    P.S. happy mothers day Christina
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    If they don't want to donate anyway why does anyone care if they cant?
    Because you're agreeing that they can't. You're telling them that they can't. Because in the gay community there may be (this scenario plays out often BTW) two women who can't conceive on their own, and ask their good friend who is a gay male to donate. They know their friend gets tested every six months, has been in a monogamous relationship (yes, this happens in the gay world), and is a good candidate to donate. You are saying he should not be allowed to donate, or will have to be deceitful (stay in the closet) for them to follow through on their plans. Still, to the couple he is known (and a very low risk), and not an unknown donor. They will have access in the future to his medical risks and a more complete picture of the father over all. He will sign a waiver against his rights as father, or the group at large may wish him to play a role as a father.

    Another point that bothers me more about this legislation is that it discounts Hep-C altogether. Hep-C is on the rise to epidemic status (some in the medical community say we've already arrived), and is found equally in homosexual and heterosexual groups. Further it is more resilient than HIV and there is no known cure. It will kill you just the same as AIDS. No legislation for that tho, cause then they couldn't discriminate? It's rising at a faster pace.

    I would worry more about that than HIV, but no one else has brought that up -why not? Using the same approach to Hep-C as HIV would result in the exclusion of just about the entire donating male population. Still wouldn't remove the threat tho ...the best thing for that would be legislation to introduce testing of...oh wait, that already exists.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    LOL

    P.S. happy mothers day Christina
    Thanks!!! :-) (my reply smilies aren't working :-( )

    Tribalenvy ~ Great points!

    sxtg ~ I thought it was stated earlier here that homosexual men's ***** is often the preference for lesbians when seeking donations?

    Insertion ~ much more so lately...
    ;-)
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Insertion ~ much more so lately...
    ;-)
    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..."
  5. #105  
    I think the article stated that men "specifically requested" by women would not be required to adhere to the 5 year celibacy policy. Are we to assume ALL lesbians have gay friends readily available to be donors?
  6. #106  
    Sxtg "If they don't want to donate anyway why does anyone care if they cant?"

    I am not saying that they don't want to donate-just that the risks might not be as high for them to participate if they make up such a small amount of the pool.

    I think we should always be worried when we tell one particular group that the 'cant do something'. :-(
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    I think the article stated that men "specifically requested" by women would not be required to adhere to the 5 year celibacy policy. Are we to assume ALL lesbians have gay friends readily available to be donors?
    According to the article not all lesbians have gay friends readily available. They may not be willing, able, what have you.

    I defer to t2gungho's statement regarding exclusion of a particular group. Great sentiment.

    I also ask where is the outcry regarding Hep-C? Why the focus on only one virus to the exclusion of others.
  8. funsnail's Avatar
    Posts
    47 Posts
    Global Posts
    51 Global Posts
    #108  
    It's not legislation it's new FDA guidelines. Guidelines that are supposed to be written by and reflect the thinking of medical professionals. It's part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25.

    The FDA has written new guidelines that indicate donations must be screened for risk factors for:

    * HIV
    * Hepatitis B
    * Hepatitis C
    * Human transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, including Creutzfeldt-Jakob)
    * Treponema pallidum; and
    * Communicable disease risks associated with xenotransplantation
    * Chlamydia trachomatis; and Neisseria gonorrhea

    As part of those risk factors the FDA believes that people who have engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years, collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. In this discussion I believe that we have accepted the higher risk factor based on the numbers already posted. As you can see from the list, there are lot's of other communicable diseases that are screened and this screening requires that someone who has for instance engaged in IV drug use should be eliminated too. I ,personally, do not see a problem with the regulations or the science behind them. I do not see it as homophobic to acknowledge that homosexuals run a higher risk of HIV.
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    Because you're agreeing that they can't. You're telling them that they can't. Because in the gay community there may be (this scenario plays out often BTW) two women who can't conceive on their own, and ask their good friend who is a gay male to donate. They know their friend gets tested every six months, has been in a monogamous relationship (yes, this happens in the gay world), and is a good candidate to donate. You are saying he should not be allowed to donate, or will have to be deceitful (stay in the closet) for them to follow through on their plans. Still, to the couple he is known (and a very low risk), and not an unknown donor. They will have access in the future to his medical risks and a more complete picture of the father over all. He will sign a waiver against his rights as father, or the group at large may wish him to play a role as a father.
    This argument deserves it own thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    Another point that bothers me more about this legislation is that it discounts Hep-C altogether. Hep-C is on the rise to epidemic status (some in the medical community say we've already arrived), and is found equally in homosexual and heterosexual groups. Further it is more resilient than HIV and there is no known cure. It will kill you just the same as AIDS. No legislation for that tho, cause then they couldn't discriminate? It's rising at a faster pace.

    I would worry more about that than HIV, but no one else has brought that up -why not? Using the same approach to Hep-C as HIV would result in the exclusion of just about the entire donating male population. Still wouldn't remove the threat tho ...the best thing for that would be legislation to introduce testing of...oh wait, that already exists.
    This arguement was about HIV. Just because regulations for HIV are being implemented doesn't mean that other diseases are bieng discounted

    Thats like saying "Why are they passing laws against drunk driving, when people are killed by other means everday?" Its a silly argument at best.
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    I think the article stated that men "specifically requested" by women would not be required to adhere to the 5 year celibacy policy. Are we to assume ALL lesbians have gay friends readily available to be donors?
    Maybe you could start an online service
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by funsnail
    It's not legislation it's new FDA guidelines. Guidelines that are supposed to be written by and reflect the thinking of medical professionals. It's part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25.

    The FDA has written new guidelines that indicate donations must be screened for risk factors for:

    * HIV
    * Hepatitis B
    * Hepatitis C
    * Human transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, including Creutzfeldt-Jakob)
    * Treponema pallidum; and
    * Communicable disease risks associated with xenotransplantation
    * Chlamydia trachomatis; and Neisseria gonorrhea

    As part of those risk factors the FDA believes that people who have engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years, collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. In this discussion I believe that we have accepted the higher risk factor based on the numbers already posted. As you can see from the list, there are lot's of other communicable diseases that are screened and this screening requires that someone who has for instance engaged in IV drug use should be eliminated too. I ,personally, do not see a problem with the regulations or the science behind them. I do not see it as homophobic to acknowledge that homosexuals run a higher risk of HIV.
    I posted before I read this. It appears that Hep C is addressed. Imagine that
    It seems DA calling this gay bashing was just his "knee jerk" reaction to some much needed medical regulations established for the sole purpose of public saftey. I for one am glad someone looks out for us.
    Last edited by sxtg; 05/08/2005 at 12:20 PM.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    This argument deserves it own thread.

    This arguement was about HIV. Just because regulations for HIV are being implemented doesn't mean that other diseases are bieng discounted

    Thats like saying "Why are they passing laws against drunk driving, when people are killed by other means everday?" Its a silly argument at best.
    I don't see it a silly argument at all. They mention Hep-c screening, but aren't treating it in the same category at all. What are the rates of Hep-C Vs. AIDS in this country.

    I have to run but would like to pick this up later.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think we should always be worried when we tell one particular group that the 'cant do something'. :-(
    There are tons of people under the age of 16 that can drive quite responsibly, however statistically they are a high risk. In most states, there is legislation telling this entire group of people that they cant. Shouldn't age be just as defended as someones sexuall prefrence?
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Maybe you could start an online service
    Are you volunteering to be a donor? Another "whole new light" is forming. Perhaps I should introduce you and Mr. Insertion?
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    There are tons of people under the age of 16 that can drive quite responsibly, however statistically they are a high risk. In most states, there is legislation telling this entire group of people that they cant. Shouldn't age be just as defended as someones sexuall prefrence?
    Now THIS could be a whole other thread...
  16. #116  
    If sperm can be frozen, tested, diagnosed and rejected/accepted in a 6-month-to-year time frame...where did the proposal for "5" years of celibacy come from. Doesn't that seem like overkill?
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Are you volunteering to be a donor? Another "whole new light" is forming. Perhaps I should introduce you and Mr. Insertion?
    Has Flip given up?
    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..."
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Now THIS could be a whole other thread...
    I thought we were discussing the rights of innocent "groups" of people.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    If sperm can be frozen, tested, diagnosed and rejected/accepted in a 6-month-to-year time frame...where did the proposal for "5" years of celibacy come from. Doesn't that seem like overkill?
    IF that is the key here.


    IF they can test with 100% accuracy then I don't think regulations outside of requiring testing would be needed.
    Are the tests 100% accurate? My guess is the answer is either NO or UNKNOWN. When it comes to matters of life or death it is ALWAYS better to error on the side of caution.

    Even if it was 100% accurate- I would still argue that it doesn't make good business sense to accept product from groups with a high failure rate.
    Last edited by sxtg; 05/08/2005 at 02:41 PM.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Has Flip given up?
    I didn't think her the type to quit so soon
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions