this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
149 points (94.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44129 readers
388 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've had a little of a debate with a commenter recently where they've argued that "donating" (selling, in their words, because you can get money for it) your blood plasma is a scam because it's for-profit and you're being exploited.

Now, I only have my German lense to look at this, but I've been under the impression that donating blood, plasma, thrombocytes, bone marrow, whatever, is a good thing because you can help an individual in need. I get that, in the case of blood plasma, the companies paying people for their donations must make some kind of profit off that, else they wouldn't be able to afford paying around 25€ per donation. But I'm not sure if I'd call that a scam. People are all-around, usually, too selfish and self-centered to do things out of the goodness of their hearts, so offering some form of compensation seems like a good idea to me.

In the past, I've had my local hospital call me asking for a blood donation, for example, because of an upcoming surgery of a hospitalised kid that shares my blood group. I got money for that too.

What are your guys' thoughts on the matter? Should it be on donation-basis only and cut out all incentives - monetary or otherwise? Is it fine to get some form of compensation for the donation?

Very curious to see what you think

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I'm not allowed to give blood since I'm gay and have an active sex life

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It’s fucking discriminatory in my opinion and it has always made me uncomfortable filling out the blood donation paperwork.

We can reliably screen for HIV (all blood donations are) why the fuck are homosexuals discriminated against over this.

[–] TheYang 12 points 3 months ago

We can reliably screen for HIV (all blood donations are) why the fuck are homosexuals discriminated against over this.

except that the tests are (per cdc) up to 90 days late in detection. So you may get infected and spend 3 months testing negative.

And judging by OPs being german, where the rule (admittedly only since 2021) is "you may only have fucked one guy for the last 4 months", this seems like being on the safe side, but not completely excessive to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

bigotry exists in all forms; but it's only the kind expressed by the uneducated & poor that gets rebuke and this one has been committed in plain sight since the 1980's by the wealthy and educated.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

That's the worst thing. At this point, they shouldn't even be allowed to even ask that

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Which is fucking hilarious at this point since the overwhelming AIDS demographic is the straights

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Blatantly false. "MSM [men who have sex with men] accounted for 67% (21,400) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections in 2022 and 87% of estimated infections among all males."

When you consider that gay and bisexual men make up a small percentage of the overall population--under 5%--the fact that gay and bisexual men account for 87% of all HIV infections in men tells you just how alarming this is.

EDIT: For the people downvoting this - do you have statistics that you consider to be better, or more up-to-date? Do you want to refute them? Then post something and prove the CDC wrong. Downvoting because you don't like things that are factually correct isn't doing anything except making you look like a petulant child.

PS - wear a goddamn condom if you and your partner aren't 100% monogamous. Yeah, no one likes them, I get it. But that's a lot better than getting infected with HIV and needing to pay for expensive anti-retrovirals for the rest of your life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

i bet that the people who made this decision were dealing with the AIDS epidemic

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Do they not just... test the blood before they use it anyway? You'd think they'd want to do that regardless

[–] LwL 8 points 3 months ago

They do, but HIV infections can take a while to turn up positive while already being transmittable.

[–] Iceblade02 3 points 3 months ago

In addition to what @LwL said - It has to do with how testing is done, and that some diseases can't really be tested for. It is quite expensive, and is generally done on small samples from lots of people mixed together. If it is positive they split the batch and test again (look up binary search).

The lower the incidence rate of diseases, the larger batches can be done. Ditching certain denographics with significantly higher risks for certain diseases can make testing orders of magnitudes cheaper and faster. (Other groups, at least where I live, include people who recently changed partner, recently went abroad, have ever gotten a blood transfusion, have gone through a recent surgery, have recently been sick, etc. etc.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

tests have been available since the 1980's; they just don't want gays there.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I found out not long ago that I can't donate blood in the US because I'm British and lived here during the 1990's so could theoretically be carrying mad cow disease.