Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 156
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribalenvy
    So, what is this legislation for again now? Why is this screening necessary when there are already clinics who do so much more?
    Let me pose a question:

    What do you suppose would happen should a recipient receive donated sperm that was the direct cause for the development of HIV in both she and the baby. It was later found the donator was a gay man ( and yes I realize it could come from a straight man as well, but the risk from a gay man is significantly higher). Given the media and grandstanding elected officials in this country, would it not be reasonable to expect the reaction to be "I cannot believe anyone would allow tihs to happen" and then spout all of the stats pertaining to HIV contraction,etc. The logical conclusion would be this should never have happened in the first place, how can we even allow high risk groups to donate?

    Is it not intuative to eliminate high risk individuals from the donation pool and to start with the highest risk catagory? I do, BTW, agree this should extend to all catagories considered to be high risk.

    As it relates to clinics and screening, surely you don't think all clinics proceed in a manner as the one you sited? Without regulation, we must rely on businesses to make the right decisions on their own - and to do that in my mind is wreckless.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Has Flip given up?
    I think you know the answer to that...
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I didn't think her the type to quit so soon
    I'm not...
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    I think you know the answer to that...
    Ohhhh, I know. The things i could say right about now...
    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. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    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.
    I agree, err on the side of caution.

    But you're saying even if the test was proven to be 100% accurate, you would still condone eliminating the ENTIRE gay community from the donors pool? Including those who've been in monogamous relationships?
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Ohhhh, I know. The things i could say right about now...
    Behave, MonkeyMan...
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Behave, MonkeyMan...
    Or else? Are you going to spank the monkey??
    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..."
  8. #128  
    "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?"

    I am not saying it shouldn't be (if you want to start that thread too-I'd post there as well.) People discriminate based on age all the time (i.e. employment) and I would defend against that position as well.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    I agree, err on the side of caution.

    But you're saying even if the test was proven to be 100% accurate, you would still condone eliminating the ENTIRE gay community from the donors pool? Including those who've been in monogamous relationships?
    condone? No, but if I was the CEO you bet I would not accept them. Why go thru all the expense with a high failure? Business 101 says to use your resources where they are likely to produce the highest returns.
  10. #130  
    I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before:

    - There were some numbers about AIDS infections per year quoted. Those are not really important in this discussion, what matters more is the total number of people are infected with HIV (the virus which later may cause AIDS, unless surpressed by medication) and carry the virus in their blood/sperm. Here are those numbers: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2003Sur...ort/table8.htm

    They show that male-to-male sexual contact is still the most frequent cause of the past HIV infections, about 180'000 cases (including Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use) out of a total of about 260'000 cases in 33 states of the US.

    - HIV infection is normally not detected by screening for the presence of the virus, but by detecting antibodies against the virus. These antibodies may take about 3 months to build up after sperm/blood becomes infectious, so you may carry the virus and infect others, but still test negative for about 3 months if the infection just happened. For this reason, a sperm donor would have to come back three months after the donation and be tested again in order to be sure. That would cause logistical problems and cost money, but it is not impossible of course. Artificial insemination is quite an expensive procedure, so the additional costs for re-testing donors (and discarding sperm of those who don't show up) would probably not be that significant.

    - I donate blood on a regular basis, and I was excluded for a while simply because I had lived East Africa for several months on two occasions. People from areas with a high HIV/AIDS prevalence (like Subsaharan Africa) are not allowed to donate blood in Switzerland - Not necessarily fair, but a safety precaution. The situation is slightly different because blood cannot be stored frozen as easily as sperm, and blood is needed in much larger quantities than sperm, so costs and speed are more important.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No the FDA is stating it's their guideline to not accept sperm donations from gay people.
    It appears that people in the effected category will not be allowed to serve as anonymous donors.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    It is completely unrealistic to expect any healthy, consenting adult to abstain from sex for FIVE years.
    Yikes!!!

    Though I strongly disagree with this, I will offer that this rationale is a significant part of the reason that such precuations, discriminations, detainments, etc. as being discussed in this thread are in fact necessary.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Are they? Here are some statistics from the CDC webpage (I looked some of these up because I think, in general, we defer to arguments we have heard before, i.e. television, but we don't look at the 'facts' and determine things for ourselves )

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

    (Im posting these for those that cant look off the wap site )

    Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003

    _________________________Male______Female______Total
    Male-to-male sexual contact_17,969____17,969______17,969
    Heterosexual contact_______5,133______8,127______13,260


    If you look at those numbers, then the argument that we should eliminate the 'gay HIV risk' doesnt really seem as strong (I am not saying that there isnt a higher risk, just that the risk doesnt seem to justify discriminating when you look at how many HIV cases there are between heterosexuals).

    I am sure that is happening but I am not convinced its the basis of the decision here, the 'science' just doesnt seem to support the decision (assuming we are looking at it from a cost/benefit perspective).

    If you look at the numbers, its not much higher so I would have to disagree. Are there more reported cases, yes, but you have to admit that HIV is a bigger problem overall (for everyone).

    On a different note, we know there are costs involved in screening. We have to screen everything because people do not tell the truth when they complete the screening forms. If we already have to screen every sample that comes in, then whats the real harm in letting gays donate? Are we really getting a benefit by discriminating here than we are incurring a detriment (because the homosexual category has about a 25% more cases of HIV occuring)? IMHO-no.
    Not sure how the numbers would change, but how many of the heterosexually induced cases involved participants who are also involved in male-to-male relationships?

    If an individual man effected both a woman and another man, each statistical column would get 1 additional count. However, for the discusison at hand, such a scenario would bolster the FDA's position.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Let me pose a question:

    What do you suppose would happen should a recipient receive donated sperm that was the direct cause for the development of HIV in both she and the baby. It was later found the donator was a gay man ( and yes I realize it could come from a straight man as well, but the risk from a gay man is significantly higher). Given the media and grandstanding elected officials in this country, would it not be reasonable to expect the reaction to be "I cannot believe anyone would allow tihs to happen" and then spout all of the stats pertaining to HIV contraction,etc. The logical conclusion would be this should never have happened in the first place, how can we even allow high risk groups to donate?

    Is it not intuative to eliminate high risk individuals from the donation pool and to start with the highest risk catagory? I do, BTW, agree this should extend to all catagories considered to be high risk.

    As it relates to clinics and screening, surely you don't think all clinics proceed in a manner as the one you sited? Without regulation, we must rely on businesses to make the right decisions on their own - and to do that in my mind is wreckless.
    But there are already regulations -that is what I stated. I looked over the sites of many clinics, not one. Please cite the example you gave me as an actual court case, and tell me one clinic who isn't doing what I mentioned.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Yikes!!!

    Though I strongly disagree with this, I will offer that this rationale is a significant part of the reason that such precuations, discriminations, detainments, etc. as being discussed in this thread are in fact necessary.
    Are you disagreeing with my statement about being able to abstain from sex for 5 years or the proposed policy change? I agree, if this is what your saying, that it's unfortunate this has to be an issue.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    _________________________Male______Female______Total
    Male-to-male sexual contact_17,969____17,969______17,969
    Heterosexual contact_______5,133______8,127______13,260 [/B]

    If you look at those numbers, then the argument that we should eliminate the 'gay HIV risk' doesnt really seem as strong (I am not saying that there isnt a higher risk, just that the risk doesnt seem to justify discriminating when you look at how many HIV cases there are between heterosexuals).


    If you look at the numbers, its not much higher so I would have to disagree. Are there more reported cases, yes, but you have to admit that HIV is a bigger problem overall (for everyone).
    Keep in mind, these are gross numbers - they are not equated to contraction per catagory as it relates to total percent of population. I looked for a good answer to the question of what percent of the US population is homosexual and found the estimate to be 3 - 6% with just over 1/2 of that being male. Assuming an estimated population of 295 million, that would mean (if the estimate of 6% of the population were gay men) there are approximately 17.7 million gay men in the US. (Note I am showing the full 6% as if it were gay men in order to look at a best/worst case scenario).

    Conversly, in 2000 there were 138 million males in total. If you look at the male population that is 21 and over, there were a total of approximately 95 million males. Removing the 17.7 million males who are gay leaves 77.3 million heterosexual males.

    So,

    Gay men total population: 17.7 million
    AIDS contractions in 2003: 17,969
    AIDS contractions through 2003: 440,887

    Straight men total population; 77.3 million
    AIDS contractions in 2003: 5,133
    AIDS contractions thorugh 2003: 56,903

    In order for straight men to contract AIDS at the same rate as gay men, you would have to see a total number of straight men contractions in 2003 at 78,474 - a 15.3 fold difference.

    That would argue there is a meaningful statistical difference between these 2 groups.

    I have a hard time seeing how anyone could not consider gay men a high risk catagory given the numbers.

    **edited to correct HIV to AIDs**
    Last edited by treo2die4; 05/09/2005 at 11:55 AM.
  17. #137  
    I would think abstaining for 5 days to be hard !
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    I would think abstaining for 5 days to be hard !
    Amen brother!
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Are you disagreeing with my statement about being able to abstain from sex for 5 years or the proposed policy change? I agree, if this is what your saying, that it's unfortunate this has to be an issue.
    I was disagreeing with your statement, while at the same time recognizing that it is a pervasive thought--which, in my estimation, when lived out, brings about the type of issues we're discussing.

    OK, plain english this time.

    1. It's not difficult for a healthy adult to go 5 years without sex (may be a challenge for some in the sex-crazed popular culture of these united states)

    2. A fair amount of people think and consequently behave as if it is

    3. That behavior leads, in no small part, to the matters at hand in this discussion.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Amen brother!
    Otherwise we would be kinda be like the dog in "Meet The Flockers" ?
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions