2007.05.30
Comment on Wednesday's editorials
More twists on Mill Mountain
Development atop Mill Mountain is still possible. Despite objections from key players, Roanoke City Council will still accept proposals for an inn.
The Fishburn family already told Roanoke City Council that it opposes developing Mill Mountain Park. Their objections haven't stopped council from seeking proposals from developers to place an inn atop the city's prominent landmark.
Read more.
Homosexuals' blood could save lives
The FDA should lift its ban on gay blood donors.
Every summer, the Red Cross announces critical blood shortages as road trips and lawn mowers send Americans to hospitals in need of transfusions. Yet the federal government needlessly excludes some potential donors from helping fill the gap. Gay and bisexual men may not roll up their sleeves.
Read more.
RSS feed 
The CDC reports that men who have sex with men comprise over 60% of all reported cases of HIV/AIDS, and that the ratio doesn't seem to be decreasing significantly.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Given that, why do you think this rule no longer makes sense?
Further, like heterosexuals, just because gay men know they should engage in safe sex practices doesn't mean they always do. To the contrary, the number of diagnosed cases have been increasing annually and the CDC reports that about 25% of those infected are unaware of the infection. This seems to cast doubt on the assertion that better testing has reduced the risks associated with allowing members of a high-risk group to donate blood.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidscases
To me this doesn't seem to be about gay-bashing, homophobia, hate-mongering or anything other than trying to reduce the statistical risk of letting contaminated blood slip through the cracks in the system.
This editorial does, however, seem to be an attempt to make a political issue out of a public health issue. Competent adults should be free to choose their own lifestyles, but they should also recognize that some choices involve more risk than others. As long as these choices only affect the people making the decision, there is no problem. However, people who opt not to engage in high-risk behavior should not be unwittingly subjected to increased risk should they need emergency medical care in the form of a blood transfusion.
And again, statistically, an IV drug user is far less likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS than are gay men, but no one is arguing that IV drug users should be allowed to donate blood. If this is not a purely political issue, why is that the case?
Comment by C Ramsey — May 30, 2007 @ 9:11 am
I see you have a problem again. I got here as quickly as I could with the solution.
Since, technically, the amount of blood donated should be equal to the blood needed that would mean that all ratios should be equal of ethnicities, religions, sexual preference, etc. to those giving blood as receiving. Meaning (since I can
Comment by terry — May 30, 2007 @ 9:50 am